Comp Sci If all edge weights are distinct, then the MST is unique

  • Thread starter Thread starter CGandC
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of uniqueness in Minimum Spanning Trees (MSTs) when all edge weights are distinct. It clarifies that uniqueness refers to both the multiset of edge weights and the edges themselves being identical across different MSTs. The proof indicates that if two MSTs differ, they must contain edges that the other omits, leading to a contradiction if the edge weights are unique. This contradiction confirms that all edges in the MSTs must be the same, establishing their uniqueness. Ultimately, the participants conclude that understanding the proof requires careful consideration, and taking breaks can aid in comprehension.
CGandC
Messages
326
Reaction score
34
Homework Statement
This is not a homework question, I thought about it myself and was wondering if the uniqueness of an MST is defined in terms of edge uniqueness or weight uniqueness
Relevant Equations
- Assume graph is connected and undirected with weight function w: E ->R
- MST = minimum spanning tree
I was having trouble understanding what "uniqueness" means when we talk about MSTs, here's the theorem and its proof:

1685611498130.png

( Source: Jeff Erickson, Algorithms. https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/book/07-mst.pdf )

I don't fully understand what "unique" stands for when talking about MSTs. I thought it meant that all the edges of the different MSTs must be the same, not only the weights.

To clarify:
I know that the multiset of weights of all MSTs of a graph must be equal, so if there's an MST with all weights unique then it must be so in every other MST; the question is - are the edges also unique?
If the answer's 'yes' , then how do we conclude from the proof above that the edges must be equal in ## T_1 ## and ## T_2 ##?
If the answer's 'no', then what is a necessary and sufficient condition for all the edges of MSTs to be equal? ( i.e. the MSTs to be unique in terms of the edges themselves )

From the proof above it seems uniqueness is defined in terms of weight of edges, but it feels to me a little bit odd, hence I'm asking the question to have a second opinion on this.

Thanks in advance for any kind of help!
 

Attachments

  • 1685611384621.png
    1685611384621.png
    44.4 KB · Views: 169
Physics news on Phys.org
The weights are defined by the graph, not by the spanning tree, so it does not make sense to talk about the weights of the spanning trees being different.
Furthermore, the second paragraph of the proof states "Each of our spanning trees must contain an edge that the other tree omits." This confirms that an edge difference is required for two spanning trees to be different.
 
FactChecker said:
The weights are defined by the graph, not by the spanning tree, so it does not make sense to talk about the weights of the spanning trees being different.

Agreed, it's known that the multiset of edge weights of every MST are the same, hence if all the weights of one MST are unique, so are for the other MST.

FactChecker said:
Furthermore, the second paragraph of the proof states "Each of our spanning trees must contain an edge that the other tree omits." This confirms that an edge difference is required for two spanning trees to be different.

That's correct, if we'll assume otherwise we'll have that all edges in ## T ## and ## T' ## are the same, hence ## T = T' ## which is a contradiction to the assumption that ## T \neq T' ##
But I don't understand where's the contradiction in the above proof if we consider the only case left which is "Each of our spanning trees must contain an edge that the other tree omits."

It seems to me the proof above only showed that if we have two different msts where the edge weights are unique, then we can swap an edge from both trees that have the same weight; where's the contradiction here to the assumption that ## T \neq T' ##?
 
CGandC said:
But I don't understand where's the contradiction in the above proof if we consider the only case left which is "Each of our spanning trees must contain an edge that the other tree omits."
This must lead to a contradiction, therefore proving that there is no edge in one that is not in the other.
At the end of the proof, it says "##w(e)=w(e'')##". But ##e \ne e''## and the weights are all distinct, so that is a contradiction. The MSTs must be identical.
 
FactChecker said:
This must lead to a contradiction, therefore proving that there is no edge in one that is not in the other.
At the end of the proof, it says "##w(e)=w(e'')##". But ##e \ne e''## and the weights are all distinct, so that is a contradiction. The MSTs must be identical.
Thanks for putting the time and helping me. I overthought about it and after taking a break and coming back to the proof I understand it.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Thread 'Full bridge circuit with inductor and resistor'
The above is the circuit i am calculating the inductor current. During the positive half of the sine input D1 and D3 are conducting so the circuit becomes My calculations are as below Are the above equations ok? When transitioning from +Ve cycle to -Ve sine wave does the above equations still applicable? During the negative cycle the diodes D2 and D4 are conducting and the current direction is going into the inductor same as when diodes D1 and D3 are conducting. According to me the same...