Undirected graph proof, Set intersection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around formal proofs in set theory and graph theory, specifically addressing two parts: proving the non-emptiness of the intersection of two sets and demonstrating the connectivity of an undirected graph based on vertex degree conditions. The conversation includes attempts to clarify proof techniques and logical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a proof by contradiction for the first part, suggesting that if the intersection of sets A and B is empty, it leads to a contradiction regarding the union of the sets.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the initial proof approach and clarifies the relationship between the sizes of the sets involved.
  • For the second part, a hint is provided to prove not only that the graph is connected but also that its diameter is less than or equal to 2, indicating that any two vertices can be connected in at most two steps.
  • A participant expresses confusion about how to demonstrate that the graph's diameter leads to its connectivity and questions the relevance of Eulerian properties.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of vertices and edges, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between sets and their cardinalities.
  • Another participant suggests applying the reasoning from the first part to the graph scenario, hinting at potential connections between the two proofs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the approach to the first part of the proof, but there is uncertainty and confusion regarding the second part, particularly in how to establish the graph's connectivity and the implications of its diameter. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of definitions and the logical steps taken in the proofs, particularly concerning the relationships between sets and their cardinalities, as well as the implications of graph properties on connectivity.

c4nn3t
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello all, I'm a bit stumped when it comes to formal proofs. I

PART A: "Let A,B ⊆{1,2...n} be two sets with A,B > n/2. Prove that the intersection of A ∩ B is nonempty."
This part I used contradiction, but didn't get everything. I assumed that if the intersection of A and B was empty, then A∪B is A+B, which is n>2 + n>2 = n. A∪B⊆{1,2,...n}, so therefore A∪B must be <= |{1,2...n}| = n. Then, n >= |A∪B| > n, which results in a contradiction.
Is this enough of a formal proof, or is there a step I missed?PART B: "Let Z=(J,K) be an undirected graph on x vertices. Each vertex has degree >x/2. Prove that Z is connected."
I wasn't sure how to start off proving this one. Supposedly solving part A helps solve this. Any two nodes are adjacent to more than >x/2 of the nodes, but I'm not sure how to turn this into a formal proof.

I'd really appreciate some input to get going, thanks so much in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
c4nn3t said:
Hello all, I'm a bit stumped when it comes to formal proofs. I

PART A: "Let A,B ⊆{1,2...n} be two sets with A,B > n/2. Prove that the intersection of A ∩ B is nonempty."
This part I used contradiction, but didn't get everything. I assumed that if the intersection of A and B was empty, then A∪B is A+B, which is n>2 + n>2 = n. A∪B⊆{1,2,...n}, so therefore A∪B must be <= |{1,2...n}| = n. Then, n >= |A∪B| > n, which results in a contradiction.
Is this enough of a formal proof, or is there a step I missed?PART B: "Let Z=(J,K) be an undirected graph on x vertices. Each vertex has degree >x/2. Prove that Z is connected."
I wasn't sure how to start off proving this one. Supposedly solving part A helps solve this. Any two nodes are adjacent to more than >x/2 of the nodes, but I'm not sure how to turn this into a formal proof.

I'd really appreciate some input to get going, thanks so much in advance!

Hi c4nn3t, :)

The idea behind your first proof is correct. What you have used is the fact that for any two finite sets $A,\,B\subseteq \{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,n\}$,

\[|A\cup B|=|A|+|B|-|A\cap B|\]

Supposing $|A\cap B|=0$ we have,

\[|A\cup B|=|A|+|B|>n\]

Also since, $A\cup B\subseteq \{1,\,2,\,\cdots,\,n\}\Rightarrow |A\cup B|\leq n$

Both of these conditions cannot be true.
 
c4nn3t said:
PART B: "Let Z=(J,K) be an undirected graph on x vertices. Each vertex has degree >x/2. Prove that Z is connected."
Hint: Prove that not only the graph is connected, but its diameter is $\le 2$. Here the diameter is the greatest distance between any pair of vertices, and the distance between two vertices is the length of a shortest path between them. In other words, diameter 2 means that one can go from one vertex to any other vertex in at most two steps.
 
AH, okay, now that first part makes sense, thanks so much for that!

I'm not still sure if I've grasped the second part. Also, I forgot to mention, J is the number of vertices, and E is the number of edges in the graph, I'll update the original post to reflect that. So I'd start out saying for a graph Z, each vertex J has degree greater than x/2. This must mean that K is also > x/2. I want to show that K is <= 2 between any two vertices, which I think is the step I'm having difficulty finding.
So once I prove that the graph is diameter <=2, how does that lead to it being connected? Ultimately, I state that the G is connected if J has connectivity n-1. Do I need to consider if the graph is Eulerian?

Still quite confused with this one, maybe I'm not picking at my brain hard enough... (Fubar)
 
c4nn3t said:
Also, I forgot to mention, J is the number of vertices, and E is the number of edges in the graph
But post #1 says that $J$ is the set of vertices, and $K$ (and not $E$) is the set of edges. Meanwhile, the number if vertices is $x$, i.e., $|J|=x$.

You shouldn't confuse sets and their cardinalities, i.e, the number of elements. These are entities of different type. The cardinality of $A$ is often denoted by $|A|$. For example, the phrase "A∪B is A+B, which is n" in post #1 should in fact say, "$|A\cup B|$ is $|A|+|B|$, which is $n$".

c4nn3t said:
So I'd start out saying for a graph Z, each vertex J has degree greater than x/2. This must mean that K is also > x/2. I want to show that K is <= 2 between any two vertices
You cannot say, "$K$ between two vertices" because $K$ is the set of all edges. Picking two concrete vertices does not change $K$; it is defined once for all in the scope of this problem.

c4nn3t said:
So once I prove that the graph is diameter <=2, how does that lead to it being connected?
Hmm, if I can walk from any vertex to any other vertex in at most two steps, why does it follow that I can walk from any vertex to any other vertex in any number of steps?

c4nn3t said:
Ultimately, I state that the G is connected if J has connectivity n-1. Do I need to consider if the graph is Eulerian?
No.

Pick two vertices $u$ and $v$. Let $U$ be the set of vertices adjacent to $u$, and let $V$ be the set of vertices adjacent to $v$. Then by assumption $|U|>x/2$ and $|V|>x/2$ where $x=|J|$. Obviously, $U\subseteq J$ and $V\subseteq J$. Do you think you can apply Part A from post #1 to this situation?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K