Path Property of Directed Acyclic Graphsdoes this complete directed graph have this property?Graphs: First...
You cannot touch me, but I can touch you, who am I?
Opposite of a diet
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
What Brexit proposals are on the table in the indicative votes on the 27th of March 2019?
Roman Numeral Treatment of Suspensions
Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?
Is expanding the research of a group into machine learning as a PhD student risky?
Increase performance creating Mandelbrot set in python
How do I find the solutions of the following equation?
Trouble understanding the speech of overseas colleagues
Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords
For a non-Jew, is there a punishment for not observing the 7 Noahide Laws?
Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?
Why escape if the_content isnt?
Purchasing a ticket for someone else in another country?
How do scammers retract money, while you can’t?
Are student evaluations of teaching assistants read by others in the faculty?
What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?
What is paid subscription needed for in Mortal Kombat 11?
Is a stroke of luck acceptable after a series of unfavorable events?
What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"
Large drywall patch supports
Would a high gravity rocky planet be guaranteed to have an atmosphere?
Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive
Path Property of Directed Acyclic Graphs
does this complete directed graph have this property?Graphs: First Order Characterisation Of A pathProve that if $r(x)≠r(y)$ for every 2 distinct vertices $x$ and $y$ of $D$ then $D$ contain a Hamiltonian path.Path cover in directed graphsLabelings of infinite directed acyclic graphsShortest path in a graph with weighted edges and verticesA question about a labeled directed graphTransform Node-Labeled Graph to equivalent Edge-LabeledLet $G = (V,E)$ be a tree, then $G$ is a caterpillar graph $iff$ The line graph of $G$ contains a Hamiltonian path.Does a finite, strongly-connected, labeled digraph with no non-trivial automorphism always have a unique path?
$begingroup$
Suppose we are given a directed acyclic graph $G$, and each node is assigned a label with two real numbers like in the following example. We are given a set of source vertices and a set of sink vertices. We construct a new graph where all source vertices are replaced by one vertex, all vertices reachable from the source vertices by another vertex and so forth. We then assign labels to these new vertices as follows: for the first label we take the maximum value of all the labels in that reachable set and for the second label we take the minimum value of all the lables. Like for $L_1$ we take the maximum of $(40,10)$ and the minimum of the second label that is minimum of $(8, 6)$ and thus the label of the new graph is $(40, 6)$.

I have written this formally as follows:
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph. Consider $source subset V$ to be source vertices which have no inward edges into them and $sink subset V$ to be sink vertices from which no outward edges are present. Consider $L_k = {v | distance(source, v) = k}$ , ie, $L_k$ is the set of vertices which are at a distance $k$ from the source vertices. Each vertex is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a$ and $b$ $a : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$, $forall v in V$.
Consider a new graph $G'=(V',E')$ where $|V'| = k$. and each vertex in this graph corresponds to a set $L_i$ of the graph $G$, ie, there is a bijective function $f:L_i rightarrow v_i$, $forall i, 1leq i leq k $. The edge set $E'$ of this graph is defined as ${(v_i, v_{i+1}, forall i, 1 leq i leq k-1}$. Thus, this new graph is a path graph. Similar to the original graph, each vertex in this graph is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $a'(v_i') = max{a(v), forall v in L_i}$ and $b'(v_i') = min{b(v), forall v in L_i}$, $forall 1 leq i leq k$.
Is this formalism correct? Now we need to show that if there is a particular vertex in the new graph such that its first label value is $ge x$ then there is a path in the original graph also where there is a vertex whose first label is $ge x$. Like for instance in the example above, if $x$ is say $50$, then the third vertex in the new graph has the first label as $60 ge 50$. There is a path is the original graph where the first label is also $60 ge 50$. If this is not true provide a counterexample. I have again written this formally below.
Prove that if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $a(v) geq x$ and if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $b'(v') leq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $b(v) leq x$ or provide a counterexample. Is this formal definition correct?
Attempt : I tried to find a counterexample but could not find any. So for the proof attempt I tried arguing on the basis of the paths. For the first case, if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$, then let us label this path as $v_0, v_1, v_2...v_k$ and the first vertex where the label $a'$ of the vertex $ge x$ be $v_n$. Assume for the purpose of contradiction that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$. This means that the first label of all paths in the original graph $G lt x$. When building the new graph $G'$ we assigned the label of the vertex as the maximum value of all the labels in $L_i$. As a result of this construction, we have built the new graph $G'$ and obtained a vertex where its first label is $geq$x. For this vertex to be present in the new graph $G'$ it would have to be present in the original graph $G$ as well otherwise it could not be present in the new graph $G'$. This contradicts our claim that that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$.
Is this proof correct or am I missing something or am I on the wrong track here?
graph-theory directed-graphs
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose we are given a directed acyclic graph $G$, and each node is assigned a label with two real numbers like in the following example. We are given a set of source vertices and a set of sink vertices. We construct a new graph where all source vertices are replaced by one vertex, all vertices reachable from the source vertices by another vertex and so forth. We then assign labels to these new vertices as follows: for the first label we take the maximum value of all the labels in that reachable set and for the second label we take the minimum value of all the lables. Like for $L_1$ we take the maximum of $(40,10)$ and the minimum of the second label that is minimum of $(8, 6)$ and thus the label of the new graph is $(40, 6)$.

I have written this formally as follows:
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph. Consider $source subset V$ to be source vertices which have no inward edges into them and $sink subset V$ to be sink vertices from which no outward edges are present. Consider $L_k = {v | distance(source, v) = k}$ , ie, $L_k$ is the set of vertices which are at a distance $k$ from the source vertices. Each vertex is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a$ and $b$ $a : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$, $forall v in V$.
Consider a new graph $G'=(V',E')$ where $|V'| = k$. and each vertex in this graph corresponds to a set $L_i$ of the graph $G$, ie, there is a bijective function $f:L_i rightarrow v_i$, $forall i, 1leq i leq k $. The edge set $E'$ of this graph is defined as ${(v_i, v_{i+1}, forall i, 1 leq i leq k-1}$. Thus, this new graph is a path graph. Similar to the original graph, each vertex in this graph is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $a'(v_i') = max{a(v), forall v in L_i}$ and $b'(v_i') = min{b(v), forall v in L_i}$, $forall 1 leq i leq k$.
Is this formalism correct? Now we need to show that if there is a particular vertex in the new graph such that its first label value is $ge x$ then there is a path in the original graph also where there is a vertex whose first label is $ge x$. Like for instance in the example above, if $x$ is say $50$, then the third vertex in the new graph has the first label as $60 ge 50$. There is a path is the original graph where the first label is also $60 ge 50$. If this is not true provide a counterexample. I have again written this formally below.
Prove that if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $a(v) geq x$ and if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $b'(v') leq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $b(v) leq x$ or provide a counterexample. Is this formal definition correct?
Attempt : I tried to find a counterexample but could not find any. So for the proof attempt I tried arguing on the basis of the paths. For the first case, if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$, then let us label this path as $v_0, v_1, v_2...v_k$ and the first vertex where the label $a'$ of the vertex $ge x$ be $v_n$. Assume for the purpose of contradiction that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$. This means that the first label of all paths in the original graph $G lt x$. When building the new graph $G'$ we assigned the label of the vertex as the maximum value of all the labels in $L_i$. As a result of this construction, we have built the new graph $G'$ and obtained a vertex where its first label is $geq$x. For this vertex to be present in the new graph $G'$ it would have to be present in the original graph $G$ as well otherwise it could not be present in the new graph $G'$. This contradicts our claim that that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$.
Is this proof correct or am I missing something or am I on the wrong track here?
graph-theory directed-graphs
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose we are given a directed acyclic graph $G$, and each node is assigned a label with two real numbers like in the following example. We are given a set of source vertices and a set of sink vertices. We construct a new graph where all source vertices are replaced by one vertex, all vertices reachable from the source vertices by another vertex and so forth. We then assign labels to these new vertices as follows: for the first label we take the maximum value of all the labels in that reachable set and for the second label we take the minimum value of all the lables. Like for $L_1$ we take the maximum of $(40,10)$ and the minimum of the second label that is minimum of $(8, 6)$ and thus the label of the new graph is $(40, 6)$.

I have written this formally as follows:
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph. Consider $source subset V$ to be source vertices which have no inward edges into them and $sink subset V$ to be sink vertices from which no outward edges are present. Consider $L_k = {v | distance(source, v) = k}$ , ie, $L_k$ is the set of vertices which are at a distance $k$ from the source vertices. Each vertex is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a$ and $b$ $a : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$, $forall v in V$.
Consider a new graph $G'=(V',E')$ where $|V'| = k$. and each vertex in this graph corresponds to a set $L_i$ of the graph $G$, ie, there is a bijective function $f:L_i rightarrow v_i$, $forall i, 1leq i leq k $. The edge set $E'$ of this graph is defined as ${(v_i, v_{i+1}, forall i, 1 leq i leq k-1}$. Thus, this new graph is a path graph. Similar to the original graph, each vertex in this graph is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $a'(v_i') = max{a(v), forall v in L_i}$ and $b'(v_i') = min{b(v), forall v in L_i}$, $forall 1 leq i leq k$.
Is this formalism correct? Now we need to show that if there is a particular vertex in the new graph such that its first label value is $ge x$ then there is a path in the original graph also where there is a vertex whose first label is $ge x$. Like for instance in the example above, if $x$ is say $50$, then the third vertex in the new graph has the first label as $60 ge 50$. There is a path is the original graph where the first label is also $60 ge 50$. If this is not true provide a counterexample. I have again written this formally below.
Prove that if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $a(v) geq x$ and if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $b'(v') leq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $b(v) leq x$ or provide a counterexample. Is this formal definition correct?
Attempt : I tried to find a counterexample but could not find any. So for the proof attempt I tried arguing on the basis of the paths. For the first case, if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$, then let us label this path as $v_0, v_1, v_2...v_k$ and the first vertex where the label $a'$ of the vertex $ge x$ be $v_n$. Assume for the purpose of contradiction that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$. This means that the first label of all paths in the original graph $G lt x$. When building the new graph $G'$ we assigned the label of the vertex as the maximum value of all the labels in $L_i$. As a result of this construction, we have built the new graph $G'$ and obtained a vertex where its first label is $geq$x. For this vertex to be present in the new graph $G'$ it would have to be present in the original graph $G$ as well otherwise it could not be present in the new graph $G'$. This contradicts our claim that that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$.
Is this proof correct or am I missing something or am I on the wrong track here?
graph-theory directed-graphs
$endgroup$
Suppose we are given a directed acyclic graph $G$, and each node is assigned a label with two real numbers like in the following example. We are given a set of source vertices and a set of sink vertices. We construct a new graph where all source vertices are replaced by one vertex, all vertices reachable from the source vertices by another vertex and so forth. We then assign labels to these new vertices as follows: for the first label we take the maximum value of all the labels in that reachable set and for the second label we take the minimum value of all the lables. Like for $L_1$ we take the maximum of $(40,10)$ and the minimum of the second label that is minimum of $(8, 6)$ and thus the label of the new graph is $(40, 6)$.

I have written this formally as follows:
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph. Consider $source subset V$ to be source vertices which have no inward edges into them and $sink subset V$ to be sink vertices from which no outward edges are present. Consider $L_k = {v | distance(source, v) = k}$ , ie, $L_k$ is the set of vertices which are at a distance $k$ from the source vertices. Each vertex is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a$ and $b$ $a : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b : v rightarrow mathbb{R}$, $forall v in V$.
Consider a new graph $G'=(V',E')$ where $|V'| = k$. and each vertex in this graph corresponds to a set $L_i$ of the graph $G$, ie, there is a bijective function $f:L_i rightarrow v_i$, $forall i, 1leq i leq k $. The edge set $E'$ of this graph is defined as ${(v_i, v_{i+1}, forall i, 1 leq i leq k-1}$. Thus, this new graph is a path graph. Similar to the original graph, each vertex in this graph is labeled with two real numbers defined by the functions $a' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $b' : v' rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $a'(v_i') = max{a(v), forall v in L_i}$ and $b'(v_i') = min{b(v), forall v in L_i}$, $forall 1 leq i leq k$.
Is this formalism correct? Now we need to show that if there is a particular vertex in the new graph such that its first label value is $ge x$ then there is a path in the original graph also where there is a vertex whose first label is $ge x$. Like for instance in the example above, if $x$ is say $50$, then the third vertex in the new graph has the first label as $60 ge 50$. There is a path is the original graph where the first label is also $60 ge 50$. If this is not true provide a counterexample. I have again written this formally below.
Prove that if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $a(v) geq x$ and if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $b'(v') leq x$ then there is a path $v in G$ from source to sink such there is a vertex $v$ where $b(v) leq x$ or provide a counterexample. Is this formal definition correct?
Attempt : I tried to find a counterexample but could not find any. So for the proof attempt I tried arguing on the basis of the paths. For the first case, if in the path graph $G'$ there is a vertex $v'$ such that $a'(v') geq x$, then let us label this path as $v_0, v_1, v_2...v_k$ and the first vertex where the label $a'$ of the vertex $ge x$ be $v_n$. Assume for the purpose of contradiction that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$. This means that the first label of all paths in the original graph $G lt x$. When building the new graph $G'$ we assigned the label of the vertex as the maximum value of all the labels in $L_i$. As a result of this construction, we have built the new graph $G'$ and obtained a vertex where its first label is $geq$x. For this vertex to be present in the new graph $G'$ it would have to be present in the original graph $G$ as well otherwise it could not be present in the new graph $G'$. This contradicts our claim that that such a path does not exist in the original graph $G$.
Is this proof correct or am I missing something or am I on the wrong track here?
graph-theory directed-graphs
graph-theory directed-graphs
asked Mar 15 at 17:14
kauraykauray
19010
19010
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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
});
}
});
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149561%2fpath-property-of-directed-acyclic-graphs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149561%2fpath-property-of-directed-acyclic-graphs%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