Marriage theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, the marriage theorem (1935), usually credited to mathematician Philip Hall, is a combinatorial result that gives the condition allowing the selection of a distinct element from each of a collection of subsets.
Let S = {S1, S2, ... } be a (not necessarily countable) set of finite subsets of some larger collection M. A system of distinct representatives (sometimes abbreviated as an SDR) is a set X = {x1, x2, ...} of pairwise distinct elements of M (where |X| = |S|) and with the property that for all i, xi is in Si.
The marriage condition for S is that, for any subset T = {Ti} of S,
- (i.e. any n subsets taken together have at least n elements)
The marriage theorem (more well known as Hall's Theorem) then states that there exists a system of distinct representatives X = {xi} if and only if S meets the marriage condition.
Example: S1 = {1, 2, 3} S2 = {1, 4, 5} S3 = {3, 5}
For this set S = {S1, S2, S3}, a valid SDR would be {1, 4, 5}. (Note this is not unique: {3, 4, 5} works equally well)
The standard example of an application of the marriage theorem is to imagine two groups of n men and women. Each woman would happily marry some subset of the men; and any man would be happy to marry a woman who wants to marry him. Consider whether it is possible to pair up the men and women so that every person is happy.
If we let Mi be the set of men that the ith woman would be happy to marry, then the marriage theorem states that each woman can happily marry a man if and only if the collection of sets {Mi} meets the marriage condition.
Note that the marriage condition is that, for any subset I of the women, the number of men whom at least one of the women would be happy to marry () be at least as big as the number of women, . It is obvious that this condition is necessary, as if it does not hold, there are not enough men to share between the I women. What is interesting is that it is also a sufficient condition.
The theorem has many other interesting "non-marital" applications. For example, take a standard deck of cards, and deal them out into 13 piles of 4 cards each. Then, using the marriage theorem, we can show that it is possible to select exactly 1 card from each pile, such that the 13 selected cards contain exactly one card of each rank (ace, 2, 3, ..., queen, king).
More abstractly, let G be a group, and H be a finite subgroup of G. Then the marriage theorem can be used to show that there is a set X such that X is an SDR for both the set of left cosets and right cosets of H in G.
This can also be applied to the problem of Assignment: Given a set of n employees, fill out a list of the jobs each of them would be able to perform. Then, we can give each person a job suited to their abilities if, and only if, for every value of k (1...n), the union of any k of the lists contains at least k jobs.
The more general problem of selecting a (not necessarily distinct) element from each of a collection of sets is permitted in general only if the axiom of choice is accepted.
Contents |
[edit] Proof
We prove Hall's marriage theorem by induction on , the size of S.
The theorem is trivially true for .
Assuming the theorem true for all , we prove it for .
First suppose that we have the stronger condition for all . Pick any as the representative of Sn; we must choose an SDR from . But if then, by our assumption, . By the already-proven case of the theorem for S' we see that we can indeed pick an SDR for S'.
Otherwise, for some we have the ``exact size . Inside T itself, for any we have , so by an already-proven case of the theorem we can pick an SDR for T.
It remains to pick an SDR for which avoids all elements of (these elements are in the SDR for T). To use the already-proven case of the theorem (again) and do this, we must show that for any , even after discarding elements of there remain enough elements in : we must prove .
But
(*)
,
using the disjointness of T and T'. So by an already-proven case of the theorem, does indeed have an SDR which avoids all elements of .
This completes the proof
(*) See the Talk page for a dispute about this inequality.
[edit] Corollary
If G(V1,V2,E) is a bipartite graph, then G has a complete matching that saturates every vertex of V1 if and only if for every subset .
[edit] Graph theory
The marriage theorem has applications in the area of graph theory. Formulated in graph theoretic terms the problem can be stated as:
Given a bipartite graph G:= (S + T, E) with two equally sized partitions S and T does there exist a perfect matching?
The marriage theorem provides the answer:
Let NG(X) denote the neighborhood of X in G. The Marriage theorem (Hall's Theorem) for Graph theory states that a perfect matching exists if and only if for every subset X of S
In other words every subset X has enough adjacent vertices in T.
A generalization to arbitrary graphs is provided by Tutte theorem.
[edit] Logical Equivalences
This theorem is part of a collection of remarkably powerful theorems in Combinatorics, all of which are logically equivalent. These include:
- König's theorem
- The Konig-Egervary theorem (1931) (Dénes Kőnig, Jenő Egerváry)
- Menger's theorem (1929)
- The Max-Flow-Min-Cut theorem (Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm)
- The Birkhoff-Von Neumann theorem (1946)
- Dilworth's theorem
[edit] References
[edit] External links
This article incorporates material from proof of Hall's marriage theorem on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.