This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: CSE 200 HW 2 Solutions Russell Impagliazzo with Chris Calabro May 12, 2010 1 Restricted 3SAT Show that 3SAT remains NPcomplete 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 3SAT is still in NP . We reduce from arbitrary 3SAT to the restricted 3SAT 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 NPcomplete. 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 polynomialtime. To show that it is NPcomplete, 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
 Winter '12
 Edmonds

Click to edit the document details