|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | ==Reduction== | | ==Reduction== |
| − | Reducing a problem A to problem B means converting an instance of problem A to problem B. Then, if we know the solution of problem B, we can solve problem A. | + | Reducing a problem <math>A</math> to problem <math>B</math> means converting an instance of problem <math>A</math> to an instance of problem <math>B</math>. Then, if we know the solution of problem <math>B</math>, we can solve problem <math>A</math> by using it. |
| | + | |
| | Consider the following example: | | Consider the following example: |
| − | You want to go from Bangalore to Delhi and you have a ticket from Mumbai to Delhi. So, you get a ticket from Bangalore to Mumbai. So, the problem of going from Bangalore to Delhi got reduced to a problem of going from Mumbai to Delhi. | + | You want to go from Bangalore to Delhi and you can get a ticket from Mumbai to Delhi. So, you ask your friend for a lift from Bangalore to Mumbai. So, the problem of going from Bangalore to Delhi got reduced to a problem of going from Mumbai to Delhi. |
| | | | |
| | + | Consider problems $A$, $B$ and $C$ |
| | + | Assume all reductions are done in polynomial time |
| | ===2 Important Points=== | | ===2 Important Points=== |
| − | #If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>B</math> $\in$ class $X$, then <math>A</math> cannot be harder than $X$, because we can always do a reduction from <math>A</math> to <math>B</math> and solve <math>B</math> instead of directly solving <math>A</math>. | + | #If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>B</math> is$\in$ class $X$, then <math>A</math> cannot be harder than $X$, because we can always do a reduction from <math>A</math> to <math>B</math> and solve <math>B</math> instead of directly solving <math>A</math>. |
| | | | |
| | #If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>A</math> $\in$ class $X$, then <math>B</math> cannot be easier than $X$. The argument is exactly same as for the one above. This reduction is used to show if a problem belongs to NP-Hard - just reduce some known NP-Hard problem to this problem | | #If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>A</math> $\in$ class $X$, then <math>B</math> cannot be easier than $X$. The argument is exactly same as for the one above. This reduction is used to show if a problem belongs to NP-Hard - just reduce some known NP-Hard problem to this problem |
| − |
| |
| − | Assume all reductions are done in polynomial time
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Consider problems $A$, $B$ and $C$
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Somethings to take care of=== | | ===Somethings to take care of=== |
Revision as of 16:25, 31 December 2013
$P \subseteq NP \subseteq NPC \subseteq NPH$
Reduction
Reducing a problem <math>A</math> to problem <math>B</math> means converting an instance of problem <math>A</math> to an instance of problem <math>B</math>. Then, if we know the solution of problem <math>B</math>, we can solve problem <math>A</math> by using it.
Consider the following example:
You want to go from Bangalore to Delhi and you can get a ticket from Mumbai to Delhi. So, you ask your friend for a lift from Bangalore to Mumbai. So, the problem of going from Bangalore to Delhi got reduced to a problem of going from Mumbai to Delhi.
Consider problems $A$, $B$ and $C$
Assume all reductions are done in polynomial time
2 Important Points
- If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>B</math> is$\in$ class $X$, then <math>A</math> cannot be harder than $X$, because we can always do a reduction from <math>A</math> to <math>B</math> and solve <math>B</math> instead of directly solving <math>A</math>.
- If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>A</math> $\in$ class $X$, then <math>B</math> cannot be easier than $X$. The argument is exactly same as for the one above. This reduction is used to show if a problem belongs to NP-Hard - just reduce some known NP-Hard problem to this problem
Somethings to take care of
- If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>B</math> $\in$ NPC, then <math>A</math> $\in$ <math>NP</math>
- Here, we cannot say <math>A</math> is <math>NPC</math>. All we can say is <math>A</math> cannot be harder than <math>NPC</math> and hence <math>NP</math> (all <math>NPC</math> problems are in <math>NP</math>). To belong to <math>NPC</math>, all <math>NP</math> problems must be reducible to <math>A</math>, which we cannot guarantee from the given statement.
- If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math>, <math>C</math> is reduced to <math>A</math> , <math>B \in NP </math> and $C \in$ <math>NPC</math>, then <math>A</math> $\in$ <math>NPC</math>
- Here, the first reduction says that <math>A</math> is in <math>NP</math>. The second reduction says that all <math>NP</math> problems can be reduced to <math>A</math>. Hence, the two sufficient conditions for <math>NPC</math> are complete and hence <math>A</math> is in <math>NPC</math>
- If <math>A</math> is reduced to <math>B</math> and <math>B</math> $\in$ NP-Hard, then <math>A</math> $\in$ <math>?</math>
- Here we can't say anything about <math>A</math>. It can be as hard as <math>NP-Hard</math>, or as simple as <math>P</math>
GATECSE