Hall's Theorem - Proof












0














I've been stuck on this proof from my textbook:



We are considering bipartite graphs only. A will refer to one of the bipartitions, and B will refer to the other.



Here are the relevant parts of the textbook



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



Firstly, why is $d_h(A) ge 1$ if H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition and contains A. If we let the degree of some vertex $a$, be greater than 1, then H would not be minimal, right? Wouldn't a subgraph H, where each vertex in A, has a degree of exactly 1, still satisfy the marriage condition and be minimal?



Also, I don't really understand the conclusion they reached. It starts out by assuming that H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition (and no other assumptions), and from there, it ends by saying that H does not satisfy the marriage conditions. To my understanding, they just proved



If H satisfies the marriage condition then H does not satisfy the marriage condition



So there's obviously something I'm misunderstanding here. I think, they were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but usually in those kinds of proofs, the assumption that needs to be disproved is done so by use of other premises and given information. However, our only assumption here was that H satisfies the condition. We then somehow ended up with teh conclusion that it doesn't.



Sorry for the long question.
I really appreciate the help.



Thanks






graph-theory proof-explanation bipartite-graph







share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    I've been stuck on this proof from my textbook:



    We are considering bipartite graphs only. A will refer to one of the bipartitions, and B will refer to the other.



    Here are the relevant parts of the textbook



    enter image description here



    enter image description here



    enter image description here



    enter image description here



    Firstly, why is $d_h(A) ge 1$ if H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition and contains A. If we let the degree of some vertex $a$, be greater than 1, then H would not be minimal, right? Wouldn't a subgraph H, where each vertex in A, has a degree of exactly 1, still satisfy the marriage condition and be minimal?



    Also, I don't really understand the conclusion they reached. It starts out by assuming that H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition (and no other assumptions), and from there, it ends by saying that H does not satisfy the marriage conditions. To my understanding, they just proved



    If H satisfies the marriage condition then H does not satisfy the marriage condition



    So there's obviously something I'm misunderstanding here. I think, they were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but usually in those kinds of proofs, the assumption that needs to be disproved is done so by use of other premises and given information. However, our only assumption here was that H satisfies the condition. We then somehow ended up with teh conclusion that it doesn't.



    Sorry for the long question.
    I really appreciate the help.



    Thanks






    graph-theory proof-explanation bipartite-graph







    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0







      I've been stuck on this proof from my textbook:



      We are considering bipartite graphs only. A will refer to one of the bipartitions, and B will refer to the other.



      Here are the relevant parts of the textbook



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      Firstly, why is $d_h(A) ge 1$ if H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition and contains A. If we let the degree of some vertex $a$, be greater than 1, then H would not be minimal, right? Wouldn't a subgraph H, where each vertex in A, has a degree of exactly 1, still satisfy the marriage condition and be minimal?



      Also, I don't really understand the conclusion they reached. It starts out by assuming that H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition (and no other assumptions), and from there, it ends by saying that H does not satisfy the marriage conditions. To my understanding, they just proved



      If H satisfies the marriage condition then H does not satisfy the marriage condition



      So there's obviously something I'm misunderstanding here. I think, they were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but usually in those kinds of proofs, the assumption that needs to be disproved is done so by use of other premises and given information. However, our only assumption here was that H satisfies the condition. We then somehow ended up with teh conclusion that it doesn't.



      Sorry for the long question.
      I really appreciate the help.



      Thanks






      graph-theory proof-explanation bipartite-graph







      share|cite|improve this question













      I've been stuck on this proof from my textbook:



      We are considering bipartite graphs only. A will refer to one of the bipartitions, and B will refer to the other.



      Here are the relevant parts of the textbook



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      Firstly, why is $d_h(A) ge 1$ if H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition and contains A. If we let the degree of some vertex $a$, be greater than 1, then H would not be minimal, right? Wouldn't a subgraph H, where each vertex in A, has a degree of exactly 1, still satisfy the marriage condition and be minimal?



      Also, I don't really understand the conclusion they reached. It starts out by assuming that H is a minimal subgraph that satisfies the marriage condition (and no other assumptions), and from there, it ends by saying that H does not satisfy the marriage conditions. To my understanding, they just proved



      If H satisfies the marriage condition then H does not satisfy the marriage condition



      So there's obviously something I'm misunderstanding here. I think, they were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but usually in those kinds of proofs, the assumption that needs to be disproved is done so by use of other premises and given information. However, our only assumption here was that H satisfies the condition. We then somehow ended up with teh conclusion that it doesn't.



      Sorry for the long question.
      I really appreciate the help.



      Thanks






      graph-theory proof-explanation bipartite-graph




      graph-theory proof-explanation bipartite-graph






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 2 '16 at 18:54









      The_Questioner

      4771514




      4771514






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          The outline of the proof is




          • let $H$ be the edge minimal subgraph of $G$ that contains $A$ and satisfies the marriage condition

          • we claim it is a matching of $A$

          • suppose it is not a matching (i.e. suppose $d_H(a)>1$); then we get a contradiction


          Your paragraph "Firstly why is $d_H(a) ge 1$ ..." is basically the outline of the proof. You claim that removing one of the extra edges of $a$ does not cause the marriage condition to be violated, which is exactly what they show, except they do it by contradiction; that is, they show that if removing an extra edge of $a$ violates the marriage condition, then there is a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 2 '16 at 23:48










          • @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:13












          • But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:28










          • @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:43











          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: "69"
          };
          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: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          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
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2040777%2fhalls-theorem-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          The outline of the proof is




          • let $H$ be the edge minimal subgraph of $G$ that contains $A$ and satisfies the marriage condition

          • we claim it is a matching of $A$

          • suppose it is not a matching (i.e. suppose $d_H(a)>1$); then we get a contradiction


          Your paragraph "Firstly why is $d_H(a) ge 1$ ..." is basically the outline of the proof. You claim that removing one of the extra edges of $a$ does not cause the marriage condition to be violated, which is exactly what they show, except they do it by contradiction; that is, they show that if removing an extra edge of $a$ violates the marriage condition, then there is a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 2 '16 at 23:48










          • @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:13












          • But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:28










          • @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:43
















          1














          The outline of the proof is




          • let $H$ be the edge minimal subgraph of $G$ that contains $A$ and satisfies the marriage condition

          • we claim it is a matching of $A$

          • suppose it is not a matching (i.e. suppose $d_H(a)>1$); then we get a contradiction


          Your paragraph "Firstly why is $d_H(a) ge 1$ ..." is basically the outline of the proof. You claim that removing one of the extra edges of $a$ does not cause the marriage condition to be violated, which is exactly what they show, except they do it by contradiction; that is, they show that if removing an extra edge of $a$ violates the marriage condition, then there is a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 2 '16 at 23:48










          • @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:13












          • But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:28










          • @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:43














          1












          1








          1






          The outline of the proof is




          • let $H$ be the edge minimal subgraph of $G$ that contains $A$ and satisfies the marriage condition

          • we claim it is a matching of $A$

          • suppose it is not a matching (i.e. suppose $d_H(a)>1$); then we get a contradiction


          Your paragraph "Firstly why is $d_H(a) ge 1$ ..." is basically the outline of the proof. You claim that removing one of the extra edges of $a$ does not cause the marriage condition to be violated, which is exactly what they show, except they do it by contradiction; that is, they show that if removing an extra edge of $a$ violates the marriage condition, then there is a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The outline of the proof is




          • let $H$ be the edge minimal subgraph of $G$ that contains $A$ and satisfies the marriage condition

          • we claim it is a matching of $A$

          • suppose it is not a matching (i.e. suppose $d_H(a)>1$); then we get a contradiction


          Your paragraph "Firstly why is $d_H(a) ge 1$ ..." is basically the outline of the proof. You claim that removing one of the extra edges of $a$ does not cause the marriage condition to be violated, which is exactly what they show, except they do it by contradiction; that is, they show that if removing an extra edge of $a$ violates the marriage condition, then there is a contradiction.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 2 '16 at 19:34









          angryavian

          39k23180




          39k23180












          • Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 2 '16 at 23:48










          • @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:13












          • But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:28










          • @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:43


















          • Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 2 '16 at 23:48










          • @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:13












          • But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
            – The_Questioner
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:28










          • @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
            – angryavian
            Dec 3 '16 at 3:43
















          Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
          – The_Questioner
          Dec 2 '16 at 23:48




          Thank you for the answer. Sorry for the late reply, but I was in school. another question I have is, how is it that $H - ab_1$ and $ H - ab_2$ don't satisfy the marriage conditions?
          – The_Questioner
          Dec 2 '16 at 23:48












          @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
          – angryavian
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:13






          @The_Questioner The point is that they do satisfy the marriage conditions. They show it by assuming those two graphs don't satisfy the marriage conditions and then arriving at a contradiction.
          – angryavian
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:13














          But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
          – The_Questioner
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:28




          But the proof says that they don't because of the minimality of H.
          – The_Questioner
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:28












          @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
          – angryavian
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:43




          @The_Questioner Yes. Their approach: if $H$ is minimal, then removing an edge will violate the marriage condition due to minimality of $H$; then, (some more arguments) we have a contradiction. Your approach: suppose $H$ is minimal; if $d_H(a) > 1$, then removing an extra edge won't violate the marriage condition (needs justification), which contradicts minimality of $H$.
          – angryavian
          Dec 3 '16 at 3:43


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • 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.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2040777%2fhalls-theorem-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

          Image
          0 My application was working fine until I decided to go with lazy loading: So, my shared component looks like this: import { Component, Renderer2 } from '@angular/core'; export interface FormModel { captcha?: string; } @Component({ selector: 'app-layout', templateUrl: './app-layout.component.html', styleUrls: ['./app-layout.css'] }) export class FullLayoutComponent { } app-layout.component.ts I am using this component in my Another component say school-home.component.html like this: <app-layout> </app-layout> and it was working fine until I created a Module school-home.module.ts like this: import { NgModule } from '@angular/core'; import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common'; import { SchoolhomeRoutingModule ...
          Read more

          android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 This is a simple project showing cubes on Unity, exported to android project and imported on Android studio. On maifest file it showed following warning: Expecting <uses-feature android:name="android.software.leanback" android:required="false" /> tag I have no information about it. And also on default emptyview android project does not use/mention this feature. I know it is required by TV's and such but why its not added by default? Why is this? And Should I concern about it? android unity3d ...
          Read more

          WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]

          Image
          up vote 0 down vote favorite This question already has an answer here: Image source URI requiring authorization 3 answers Add header to all* HTTP requests on a machine 1 answer first of all sorry for my english. Recently I added some security in the backend of my project, and now I need to send a validation code(apiKey) inside the headers to retrieve the images. I have a problem with ALL images in my project that I had attached in my UI. For example, before I had: <Image Height="90" Source="{Binding Video.Thumbnail}"/> Now I need to change my code to create a CUSTOM petition add the apiKey in the header:...
          Read more