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

          Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

          Image
          28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
          Read more

          Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

          Image
          up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
          Read more

          A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

          Image
          3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
          Read more