MHB Undirected graph proof, Set intersection

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?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top