MHB A Subset of a Graph with No Perfect Matching

  • Thread starter Thread starter joypav
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving a property of a graph G that lacks a perfect matching, specifically regarding a subset S of G. It establishes that if |S| is less than the number of odd components of G minus S, then each vertex in S must be adjacent to at least three odd components of G minus S. The proof explores two cases: when S is empty and when S is non-empty, leading to the conclusion that the number of odd components decreases in a controlled manner as vertices are removed. The approach involves using the contrapositive of Tutte's 1-Factor Theorem to support the argument. Overall, the proof seeks to confirm the necessary conditions for the existence of a perfect matching in the graph.
joypav
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
The problem given is...

Let G be a graph with no perfect matching. Then, for some $S \subset G$,

1. $|S|<O(G−S)$
2. Each vertex in S is adjacent to vertices in at least three odd components of $G−S$.
(where $O(G−S)$ is the number of odd components of $G−S$)


Number 1. is the contrapositive of Tutte's 1-Factor Theorem. So no problems there.

Should number 2. also be proved using the contrapositive? Meaning to show...

$\forall S \subset G$ there exists at least one vertex that is adjacent to less than three odd components of $G-S \implies G$ has a perfect matching

I've tried drawing some sketches for the forward proof... with the subset $S$ and odd and even components, but without much progress. I thought maybe the contrapositive was the way to go, and that I needed to construct a perfect matching. Any help or hints would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I may have a proof.. I will post it here so the question is complete, but also feel free to make sure it is correct!

Proof:

Case i: $S = \emptyset$
Then both 1. and 2. are obviously true.

Case ii: $S \ne \emptyset$
Assuming 1. to be true, choose the smallest possible $S$ satisfying 1..
Claim: $|G-S|$ is even
Suppose not. Then $\emptyset$ satisfies 1., contradicting that $S$ is the smallest set satisfying 1..
Thus, $|G-S|$ is even.

Choose an arbitrary $v \in V(S)$.
Let $x = $ the number of odd components that $v$ is adjacent to. (we want to show $x \geq 3$)

Let $S^* = S - \left\{v\right\}$.
Then consider the set $G - S^*$.

Note that any components that $v$ was adjacent to when considering the set $G - S$ are merged together when considering $G - S^*$ (meaning, any components that are adjacent to $v$ become one component in our new graph). This new component may be odd or even.

Then,
$O(G - S^*) = O(G - S) - x + \delta$
where $\delta = 0$ if $x$ is even and $1$ if $x$ is odd.

Note the following...
(i.) $|S| + 2 \leq O(G - S)$ (because $|S|$ even $\implies O(G - S)$ even and $|S|$ odd $\implies O(G - S)$ odd)
(ii.) $|S^*| \geq O(G - S^*)$ (otherwise $S^*$ would be a smaller set satisfying 1., contradicting the assumption)Then,

$O(G - S) - x + \delta = O(G - S^*) \leq |S^*| = |S| - 1 \leq O(G - S) - 2 - 1 = O(G - S) - 3$
$\implies O(G - S) - x + \delta \leq O(G - S) - 3$
$\implies x \geq 3 + \delta$
where $\delta$ is $0$ or $1$, completing the proof.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...