The Clique vs. Independent Set Problem
$begingroup$
Suppose you have an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$, known to both Alice and Bob, Alice gets an independent set of $G$. Bob gets a Clique $B ⊆ V$.
Is there any algorithm in $O(log^2 n)$ bits that finds whether
$ A ∩ B = Ø $?
This is a well known communication complexity problem called CIS problem that was described by Yannakakis.
Lecture notes; the claim is Theorem 3- Link to Nisan & Kushilevitz's textbook
I'm not sure why and how does this work exactly. and which part of the $n/2$ vertices are reduced by both players.
P.S. I came to a conclusion that an independent and a clique can intersect in at most one vertex.
algorithms graphs communication-complexity
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose you have an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$, known to both Alice and Bob, Alice gets an independent set of $G$. Bob gets a Clique $B ⊆ V$.
Is there any algorithm in $O(log^2 n)$ bits that finds whether
$ A ∩ B = Ø $?
This is a well known communication complexity problem called CIS problem that was described by Yannakakis.
Lecture notes; the claim is Theorem 3- Link to Nisan & Kushilevitz's textbook
I'm not sure why and how does this work exactly. and which part of the $n/2$ vertices are reduced by both players.
P.S. I came to a conclusion that an independent and a clique can intersect in at most one vertex.
algorithms graphs communication-complexity
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose you have an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$, known to both Alice and Bob, Alice gets an independent set of $G$. Bob gets a Clique $B ⊆ V$.
Is there any algorithm in $O(log^2 n)$ bits that finds whether
$ A ∩ B = Ø $?
This is a well known communication complexity problem called CIS problem that was described by Yannakakis.
Lecture notes; the claim is Theorem 3- Link to Nisan & Kushilevitz's textbook
I'm not sure why and how does this work exactly. and which part of the $n/2$ vertices are reduced by both players.
P.S. I came to a conclusion that an independent and a clique can intersect in at most one vertex.
algorithms graphs communication-complexity
$endgroup$
Suppose you have an undirected graph $G = (V, E)$, known to both Alice and Bob, Alice gets an independent set of $G$. Bob gets a Clique $B ⊆ V$.
Is there any algorithm in $O(log^2 n)$ bits that finds whether
$ A ∩ B = Ø $?
This is a well known communication complexity problem called CIS problem that was described by Yannakakis.
Lecture notes; the claim is Theorem 3- Link to Nisan & Kushilevitz's textbook
I'm not sure why and how does this work exactly. and which part of the $n/2$ vertices are reduced by both players.
P.S. I came to a conclusion that an independent and a clique can intersect in at most one vertex.
algorithms graphs communication-complexity
algorithms graphs communication-complexity
edited 2 days ago
Yuval Filmus
196k15184349
196k15184349
asked 2 days ago
JayJay
1465
1465
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The two players construct a sequence $V_0 supset V_1 supset cdots supset V_m$ of sets of vertices such that:
$V_0$ consists of all vertices in the graph.
$|V_{i+1}| leq (|V_i|+1)/2$.
$V_i supseteq C cap I$.
The players stop once $|V_m| leq 1$. At this point they can answer the question using $O(1)$ communication.
At round $i$, the players know $V_{i-1}$, and wish to construct $V_i$. They act as follows:
If $C cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Alice sends Bob one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq C subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, she sends $bot$.
If Alice sent $bot$ and $I cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Bob sends Alice one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of non-neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq I subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, he sends Alice $bot$.
If both players sent $bot$, then $C cap I = emptyset$. Indeed, if $v in C cap I$, then $v$ has at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors and at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors inside $|V_{i-1}|$, whereas the number of potential neighbors and non-neighbors is just $|V_{i-1}|-1$. Therefore the players can abort and conclude that $C cap I = emptyset$.
Each round takes $O(log n)$ bits of communication, and there are $O(log n)$ rounds, for a total of $O(log^2 n)$ bits of communication.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $O(log n)$ rounds comes from the fact that we are doing a binary search:
If the algorithm fails to terminate, then either Alice or Bob share a vertex v.
If Alice shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this neighborhood (along with v). Observe that $|V_i|< |V_{i-1}|/2+1$. We will be a little hand-wavy and say $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (although it may actually be $|V_{i-1}|/2+1/2$ when $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd).
Similarly, if Bob shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this non-neighborhood (along with v). As such, $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (again we are being a little hand-wavy).
In both cases $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$. As such, if the algorithm fails to terminate after $k$ iterations, then, inductively, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^k$. Finally, observe that the algorithm terminates if $|V_k|leq 1$, i.e., we will terminate if ever $V_k$ is a singleton or empty. Finally, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^kleq 1$ if $kgeq log |V_0|=log n$ implying that we must terminate in $log n$ iterations.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106562%2fthe-clique-vs-independent-set-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The two players construct a sequence $V_0 supset V_1 supset cdots supset V_m$ of sets of vertices such that:
$V_0$ consists of all vertices in the graph.
$|V_{i+1}| leq (|V_i|+1)/2$.
$V_i supseteq C cap I$.
The players stop once $|V_m| leq 1$. At this point they can answer the question using $O(1)$ communication.
At round $i$, the players know $V_{i-1}$, and wish to construct $V_i$. They act as follows:
If $C cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Alice sends Bob one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq C subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, she sends $bot$.
If Alice sent $bot$ and $I cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Bob sends Alice one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of non-neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq I subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, he sends Alice $bot$.
If both players sent $bot$, then $C cap I = emptyset$. Indeed, if $v in C cap I$, then $v$ has at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors and at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors inside $|V_{i-1}|$, whereas the number of potential neighbors and non-neighbors is just $|V_{i-1}|-1$. Therefore the players can abort and conclude that $C cap I = emptyset$.
Each round takes $O(log n)$ bits of communication, and there are $O(log n)$ rounds, for a total of $O(log^2 n)$ bits of communication.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The two players construct a sequence $V_0 supset V_1 supset cdots supset V_m$ of sets of vertices such that:
$V_0$ consists of all vertices in the graph.
$|V_{i+1}| leq (|V_i|+1)/2$.
$V_i supseteq C cap I$.
The players stop once $|V_m| leq 1$. At this point they can answer the question using $O(1)$ communication.
At round $i$, the players know $V_{i-1}$, and wish to construct $V_i$. They act as follows:
If $C cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Alice sends Bob one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq C subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, she sends $bot$.
If Alice sent $bot$ and $I cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Bob sends Alice one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of non-neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq I subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, he sends Alice $bot$.
If both players sent $bot$, then $C cap I = emptyset$. Indeed, if $v in C cap I$, then $v$ has at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors and at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors inside $|V_{i-1}|$, whereas the number of potential neighbors and non-neighbors is just $|V_{i-1}|-1$. Therefore the players can abort and conclude that $C cap I = emptyset$.
Each round takes $O(log n)$ bits of communication, and there are $O(log n)$ rounds, for a total of $O(log^2 n)$ bits of communication.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The two players construct a sequence $V_0 supset V_1 supset cdots supset V_m$ of sets of vertices such that:
$V_0$ consists of all vertices in the graph.
$|V_{i+1}| leq (|V_i|+1)/2$.
$V_i supseteq C cap I$.
The players stop once $|V_m| leq 1$. At this point they can answer the question using $O(1)$ communication.
At round $i$, the players know $V_{i-1}$, and wish to construct $V_i$. They act as follows:
If $C cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Alice sends Bob one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq C subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, she sends $bot$.
If Alice sent $bot$ and $I cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Bob sends Alice one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of non-neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq I subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, he sends Alice $bot$.
If both players sent $bot$, then $C cap I = emptyset$. Indeed, if $v in C cap I$, then $v$ has at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors and at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors inside $|V_{i-1}|$, whereas the number of potential neighbors and non-neighbors is just $|V_{i-1}|-1$. Therefore the players can abort and conclude that $C cap I = emptyset$.
Each round takes $O(log n)$ bits of communication, and there are $O(log n)$ rounds, for a total of $O(log^2 n)$ bits of communication.
$endgroup$
The two players construct a sequence $V_0 supset V_1 supset cdots supset V_m$ of sets of vertices such that:
$V_0$ consists of all vertices in the graph.
$|V_{i+1}| leq (|V_i|+1)/2$.
$V_i supseteq C cap I$.
The players stop once $|V_m| leq 1$. At this point they can answer the question using $O(1)$ communication.
At round $i$, the players know $V_{i-1}$, and wish to construct $V_i$. They act as follows:
If $C cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Alice sends Bob one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq C subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, she sends $bot$.
If Alice sent $bot$ and $I cap V_{i-1}$ contains a vertex $v$ with fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$, then Bob sends Alice one such vertex $v$, and both players set $V_i$ to be this set of non-neighbors, together with $v$ (this is valid since $C cap I subseteq I subseteq V_i$). Otherwise, he sends Alice $bot$.
If both players sent $bot$, then $C cap I = emptyset$. Indeed, if $v in C cap I$, then $v$ has at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors and at least $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors inside $|V_{i-1}|$, whereas the number of potential neighbors and non-neighbors is just $|V_{i-1}|-1$. Therefore the players can abort and conclude that $C cap I = emptyset$.
Each round takes $O(log n)$ bits of communication, and there are $O(log n)$ rounds, for a total of $O(log^2 n)$ bits of communication.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15184349
196k15184349
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
How does the number of vertices are resuced by factor of 2 - this leads to the $O(log(n))$ rounds?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than what I wrote.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot Yuval, I’ll try to figure it out.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $O(log n)$ rounds comes from the fact that we are doing a binary search:
If the algorithm fails to terminate, then either Alice or Bob share a vertex v.
If Alice shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this neighborhood (along with v). Observe that $|V_i|< |V_{i-1}|/2+1$. We will be a little hand-wavy and say $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (although it may actually be $|V_{i-1}|/2+1/2$ when $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd).
Similarly, if Bob shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this non-neighborhood (along with v). As such, $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (again we are being a little hand-wavy).
In both cases $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$. As such, if the algorithm fails to terminate after $k$ iterations, then, inductively, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^k$. Finally, observe that the algorithm terminates if $|V_k|leq 1$, i.e., we will terminate if ever $V_k$ is a singleton or empty. Finally, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^kleq 1$ if $kgeq log |V_0|=log n$ implying that we must terminate in $log n$ iterations.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $O(log n)$ rounds comes from the fact that we are doing a binary search:
If the algorithm fails to terminate, then either Alice or Bob share a vertex v.
If Alice shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this neighborhood (along with v). Observe that $|V_i|< |V_{i-1}|/2+1$. We will be a little hand-wavy and say $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (although it may actually be $|V_{i-1}|/2+1/2$ when $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd).
Similarly, if Bob shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this non-neighborhood (along with v). As such, $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (again we are being a little hand-wavy).
In both cases $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$. As such, if the algorithm fails to terminate after $k$ iterations, then, inductively, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^k$. Finally, observe that the algorithm terminates if $|V_k|leq 1$, i.e., we will terminate if ever $V_k$ is a singleton or empty. Finally, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^kleq 1$ if $kgeq log |V_0|=log n$ implying that we must terminate in $log n$ iterations.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $O(log n)$ rounds comes from the fact that we are doing a binary search:
If the algorithm fails to terminate, then either Alice or Bob share a vertex v.
If Alice shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this neighborhood (along with v). Observe that $|V_i|< |V_{i-1}|/2+1$. We will be a little hand-wavy and say $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (although it may actually be $|V_{i-1}|/2+1/2$ when $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd).
Similarly, if Bob shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this non-neighborhood (along with v). As such, $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (again we are being a little hand-wavy).
In both cases $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$. As such, if the algorithm fails to terminate after $k$ iterations, then, inductively, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^k$. Finally, observe that the algorithm terminates if $|V_k|leq 1$, i.e., we will terminate if ever $V_k$ is a singleton or empty. Finally, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^kleq 1$ if $kgeq log |V_0|=log n$ implying that we must terminate in $log n$ iterations.
New contributor
$endgroup$
The $O(log n)$ rounds comes from the fact that we are doing a binary search:
If the algorithm fails to terminate, then either Alice or Bob share a vertex v.
If Alice shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this neighborhood (along with v). Observe that $|V_i|< |V_{i-1}|/2+1$. We will be a little hand-wavy and say $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (although it may actually be $|V_{i-1}|/2+1/2$ when $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd).
Similarly, if Bob shares $v$, then $v$ has fewer than $|V_{i-1}|/2$ non-neighbors in $V_{i-1}$. $V_i$ is set to be this non-neighborhood (along with v). As such, $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$ (again we are being a little hand-wavy).
In both cases $|V_i|leq |V_{i-1}|/2$. As such, if the algorithm fails to terminate after $k$ iterations, then, inductively, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^k$. Finally, observe that the algorithm terminates if $|V_k|leq 1$, i.e., we will terminate if ever $V_k$ is a singleton or empty. Finally, $|V_k|leq |V_0|/2^kleq 1$ if $kgeq log |V_0|=log n$ implying that we must terminate in $log n$ iterations.
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
James BaileyJames Bailey
312
312
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
If $|V_{i-1}|$ is odd then your inequality is off by 1/2.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Correct. Resolving the issue of parity results in at most $1+log n$ rounds.
$endgroup$
– James Bailey
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106562%2fthe-clique-vs-independent-set-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The lecture notes contain a complete proof.
$endgroup$
– Yuval Filmus
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I did not understand the algorithm completely to understand the proof itself.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago