ans2 - CSE 200 HW 2 Solutions Russell Impagliazzo with...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CSE 200 HW 2 Solutions Russell Impagliazzo with Chris Calabro May 12, 2010 1 Restricted 3-SAT Show that 3-SAT remains NP-complete when restricted to formulas where every variable appears in at most three clauses. Since we can verify that a formula has the above property in polynomial time, the restricted 3-SAT is still in NP . We reduce from arbitrary 3-SAT to the restricted 3-SAT as follows. Let be a 3- CNF in variables x 1 , ..x n and with clauses C 1 , ..C m . We construct as follows: Our new set of variables contains a variable x i,j for each 1 i n and 1 j m . For each clause C j , we replace each variable x i in the clause by x i,j and each negated variable x i with x i,j . Call the result C j , and add it to .. Note that x y is equivalent to y x . Thus, we can express x i, 1 x i, 2 ...x i,n x i, 1 as a set of m clauses of size 2. For each i , we add these m clauses to . These two types of clauses are all the clauses in . Note that each x i,j can only appear up to three times in : once in C j , and once each in the implications between x i,j- 1 and x i,j and between x i,j and x i,j +1 (operations in indices being done modulo m ). This gives the reduction. We now need to show that is satisfiable if and only if is. First, assume is satisfiable, by assigning each x i value a i . Then consider the assignment to the variables x i,j that assigns each x i,j value a i . Since each clause C j is satisfied by ~a , and we assign each x i,j the value x i was assigned, each C j is satisfied. Since we give all x i,j the same value, each implication is satsified. Thus, is satisfiable. If is satisfiable by x i,j = a i,j , we must have all a i,j with the same i equal to satisfy the implication clauses. Define a i to be this common value of a i,j . Then the assignment giving x i value a i satisfies , since a i,j satisfies each clause C j and we give the x i the same value as x i,j . Thus, the reduction exactly preserves satisfiability, and hence the restricted version is still NP-complete. 2 Larger Independent Set The larger independent set problem is, given a graph G and an independent set I in G , is there an independent set of G larger than I ? This problem is in NP , 1 since an independent set larger than I would have size at most n , and could be verified in polynomial-time. To show that it is NP-complete, we reduce from the Big Independent Set problem: Given G, k , is there an independent set I of size k in G ? Given G = ( V, E ) and k , we let V be V together with k- 1 new nodes, w 1 , ..w k- 1 . We let E be E together with v, w j for each v V and 1 j k- 1....
View Full Document

Page1 / 5

ans2 - CSE 200 HW 2 Solutions Russell Impagliazzo with...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online