Let G be an undirected graph. Consider a depth-first traversal of G, and let T be the resulting depth-first search tree. Let u be a vertex in G and let v be the first new (unvisited) vertex visited after visiting u in the traversal. Which of the following statements is always true?
(A) {u,v} must be an edge in G, and u is a descendant of v in T
(B) {u,v} must be an edge in G, and v is a descendant of u in T
(C) If {u,v} is not an edge in G then u is a leaf in T
(D) If {u,v} is not an edge in G then u and v must have the same parent in T.
=========================================================================
Correct answer is (C)
But I'm stuck at (B), I'm not getting any counter example for (B)
Consider the following graph (which is in fact a tree).
G := (V, E) where
V := {a, u, v} and E := {{a,u}, {a,v}}.
A depth-first traversal in G can visit first a, then u and finally v. At the point where u is visited, v is the next unvisited node. However, {u, v} is not an edge in E, hence statement (B) is false.
Related
I had an exam yesterday and I would like to check if I was answering correctly on one of the questions.
The question:
G = (V, E, w) is a directed, simple graph (V: set of vertices, E: set of edges, w: non-negative weight function). There is a non-empty subset of G denoted E(red).
A path p in G will be called n-red if there are n red edges on p. d_red(u, v) will be the lightest path from vertex u to vertex v that is at least 1-red. If all paths from u to v are 0-red, d_red(u, v) = Infinity.
The weight of a path p is the sum of all edges that are part of p.
Input:
G = (V, E, w)
s, t that are elements of V
f_red: E -> { true, false }
f_red(red edge) = true
f_red(non-red edge) = false
Output:
d_red(s, t) (the lightest path that includes at least one red edge).
Runtime Constraint: O(V log V + E)
In a few words, my solution was to use Dijkstra's algorithm. A Boolean variable that is initially false is used to keep track of whether at least one red edge has been encountered. This is checked for every iteration with f_red and the variable is set to true if f_red(current edge) = true. If the variable is still false at the end, return d_red(u, v) = Infinity.
What do you think about that?
There is a directed graph G = [V ; E] with edge weights w(u, v) for (u, v) ∈ E.
Suppose the values for {d[v], π[v]}; v ∈ V and claims
that these are the length of the shortest path and the predecessor node in
it for v ∈ V , how could I verify if this statement is true or false that does not solve the entire shortest path problem from scratch? This is an problem I met with not many ideas in my head ..
The problem is a bit unclear, but to clarify:
There's a node s in your graph, and that for each vertex v:
for v != s, pi[v] is intended to be a node adjacent to v that's on a shortest path from v to s.
d[v] is intended to store the shortest distance from v to s.
The problem is to verify, given a pi, d, that they legitimately contain back-edges and minimal distances.
An easily implemented condition that verifies this is as follows:
For each vertex v
Either:
v = s and d[v] = 0
Or:
d[pi[v]] = d[v] - 1
d[u] >= d[v] - 1 for each u adjacent to v
pi[v] is adjacent to v
This check runs in O(V + E) time.
How to write pesoduocode for following graph !
Figure 23.2
http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~csli/graduate/algorithms/book6/chap23.htm
here what I have
// adj-list
for each u ∈ v [G]
do empty list Adj-list[u]
for each u ∈ v [G]
do if (u,v) ∈ E //if there is edge between u,v
then add v to Adj-list [u]
but i don't know how to deal with the directed edge any help please?
the second one
//adj-matrix
for i=1 to n
for j=1 to n
if (i,j)∈ E
adj-matrix [i][j]=1
else
adj-matrix [i][j]=0
This can be implemented using Map<Node, List<Node>>. Nodes are vertices in your graph that then correlate to a list of Nodes that they are connected to. This model handles the directed adjacency list as if node A is connected to node B in that direction - node B will appear in node A's list, but not vice versa.
I am having a tough time understanding Tarjan's lowest common ancestor algorithm. Can somebody explain it with an example?
I am stuck after the DFS search, what exactly does the algorithm do?
My explanation will be based on the wikipedia link posted above :).
I assumed that you already know about the union disjoint structure using in the algorithm.
(If not please read about it, you can find it in "Introduction to Algorithm").
The basic idea is every times the algorithm visit a node x, the ancestor of all its descendants will be that node x.
So to find a Least common ancestor (LCA) r of two nodes (u,v), there will be two cases:
Node u is a child of node v (vice versa), this case is obvious.
Node u is ith branch and v is the jth branch (i < j) of node r, so after visit node u, the algorithm backtrack to node r, which is the ancestor of the two nodes, mark the ancestor of node u as r and go to visit node v.
At the moment it visit node v, as u is already marked as visited (black), so the answer will be r. Hope you get it!
I will explain using the code from CP-Algorithms:
void dfs(int v)
{
visited[v] = true;
ancestor[v] = v;
for (int u : adj[v]) {
if (!visited[u]) {
dfs(u);
union_sets(v, u);
ancestor[find_set(v)] = v;
}
}
for (int other_node : queries[v]) {
if (visited[other_node])
cout << "LCA of " << v << " and " << other_node
<< " is " << ancestor[find_set(other_node)] << ".\n";
}
}
Let's outline a proof of the algorithm.
Lemma 1: For each vertex v and its parent p, after we visit v from p and union v with p, p and all vertices in the subtree of root v (i.e. p and all descendents of v, including v) will be in one disjoint set represented by p (i.e. ancester[root of the disjoint set] is p).
Proof: Suppose the tree has height h. Then proceed by induction in vertex height, starting from the leaf nodes.
Lemma 2: For each vertex v, right before we mark it as visited, the following statements are true:
Each v's parents pi will be in a disjoint set that contains precisely pi and all vertices in the subtrees of pi that pi has already finished visiting.
Every visited vertex so far is in one of these disjoint sets.
Proof: We proceed by induction. The statement is vacuously true for the root (the only vertex with height 0) as it has no parent. Now suppose the statement holds for every vertex of height k for k ≥ 0, and suppose v is a vertex of height k + 1. Let p be v's parent. Before p visits v, suppose it has already visited its children c1, c2, ..., cn. By Lemma 1, p and all vertices in the subtrees of root c1, c2, ..., cn are in one disjoint set represented by p. Furthermore, all newly visited vertices after we visited p are the vertices in this disjoint set. Since p is of height k, we can use the induction hypothesis to conclude that v indeed satisfies 1 and 2.
We are now ready to prove the algorithm.
Claim: For each query (u,v), the algorithm outputs the lowest common ancester of u and v.
Proof: Without loss of generality suppose we visit u before we visit v in the DFS. Then either v is a descendent of u or not.
If v is a descedent of u, by Lemma 1 we know that u and v are in one disjoint set that is represented by u, which means ancestor[find_set(v)] is u, the correct answer.
If v is not a descendent of u, then by Lemma 2 we know that u must be in one of the disjoint sets, each of them represented by a parent of v at the time we mark v. Let p be the representing vertex of the disjoint set u is in. By Lemma 2 we know p is a parent of v, and u is in a visited subtree of p and therefore a descendent of p. These are not changed after we have visited all v's children, so p is indeed a common ancestor of u and v. To see p is the lowest common ancestor, suppose q is the child of p of which v is a descendent (i.e. if we travel back to root from v, q is the last parent before we reach p; q can be v). Suppose for contradiction that u is also a descendent of q. Then by Lemma 2 u is in both the disjoint set represented by p and the disjoint set represented by q, so this disjoint set contains two v's parents, a contradiction.
Yes, this will be a homework (I am self-learning not for university) question but I am not asking for solution. Instead, I am hoping to clarify the question itself.
In CLRS 3rd edition, page 593, excise 22.1-5,
The square of a directed graph G = (V, E) is the graph G2 = (V, E2) such that (u,v) ∈ E2 if and only if G contains a path with at most two edges between u and v. Describe efficient algorithms for computing G2 from G for both the adjacency-list and adjacency-matrix representations of G. Analyze the running times of your algorithms.
However, in CLRS 2nd edition (I can't find the book link any more), page 530, the same exercise but with slightly different description:
The square of a directed graph G = (V, E) is the graph G2 = (V, E2) such that (u,w) ∈ E2 if and only if for some v ∈ V, both (u,v) ∈ E and (v,w) ∈ E. That is, G2 contains an edge between u and w whenever G contains a path with exactly two edges between u and w. Describe efficient algorithms for computing G2 from G for both the adjacency-list and adjacency-matrix representations of G. Analyze the running times of your algorithms.
For the old exercise with "exactly two edges", I can understand and can solve it. For example, for adjacency-list, I just do v->neighbour->neighbour.neighbour, then add (v, neighbour.neighbour) to the new E2.
But for the new exercise with "at most two edges", I am confused.
What does "if and only if G contains a path with at most two edges between u and v" mean?
Since one edge can meet the condition "at most two edges", if u and v has only one path which contains only one edge, should I add (u, v) to E2?
What if u and v has a path with 2 edges, but also has another path with 3 edges, can I add (u, v) to E2?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. E^2 should contain (u,v) iff E contains (u,v) or there is w in V, such that E contains both (u,w) and (w,v).
In other words, E^2 according to the new definition is the union of E and E^2 according to the old definition.
Regarding to your last question: it doesn't matter what other paths between u and v exist (if they do). So, if there are two paths between u and v, one with 2 edges and one with 3 edges, then (u,v) should be in E^2 (according to both definitions).
The square of a graph G, G^2 defined by those vertices V' for which d(u,v)<=2 and the eges G' of G^2 is all those edges of G which have both the end vertices From V'