Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Formal Languages and Automata Homework 4

This document contains answers to questions about 2-SAT problems. The questions cover topics like: why a clause with two literals is logically equivalent to two implications; constructing a directed graph from a 2-SAT instance in polynomial time; and showing that a 2-SAT instance is unsatisfiable if and only if there is a variable with paths from it to itself and its negation in the associated graph. The answers provide algorithms and proofs that 2-SAT can be solved in polynomial time, and is therefore in P.

Uploaded by

TP PROXY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

Formal Languages and Automata Homework 4

This document contains answers to questions about 2-SAT problems. The questions cover topics like: why a clause with two literals is logically equivalent to two implications; constructing a directed graph from a 2-SAT instance in polynomial time; and showing that a 2-SAT instance is unsatisfiable if and only if there is a variable with paths from it to itself and its negation in the associated graph. The answers provide algorithms and proofs that 2-SAT can be solved in polynomial time, and is therefore in P.

Uploaded by

TP PROXY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CSC 455/CS 555, Assignment 4

Answers

The main focus of the complexity part is problems that are likely not to have feasible algorithms (N P -
complete problems). Nonetheless, the core of the N P -completeness is actually based on feasible algorithms
(aka Turing machines running in deterministic polynomial time), for indeed they are the basis of polyno-
mial reductions. This assignment gives you the opportunity to play with algorithms.

1. Explain why a clause with two literals ( x ∨ y) is logically equivalent with two implications, namely
x → y and y → x.

A NSWER :

We have x → y = x ∨ y = x ∨ y (given that a → b = a ∨ b and by the elimination of double negation).


Similarly y → x = y ∨ x = y ∨ x = x ∨ y.
It follows that any instance of 2-SAT can be written in implicative normal form that is, as a conjunction
of simple implications (of form a → b).

2. Given an instance F of 2-SAT we construct the following directed graph: The vertices of the graph are
exactly all the literals from F, and there exists an edge ( a, b) iff a → b can be inferred from F based on
the equivalence established in Question 1. Show that such a graph can be constructed in polynomial
time starting from F.

A NSWER :

Let | F | denote the length of F (i.e., the number of symbols in F). Clearly there are less than | F | distinct
literals l1 , l2 , . . . , ln in F. The following algorithm will construct the desired graph, which will be
denoted by G ( F ) henceforth:
(a) Convert F to its implicative normal form F ′ using the equivalence from Question 1.
This step takes O(2| F |) = O(| F |) steps (since there are two y → x formulae for each clause in
F and there are less than | F | such clauses). Moreover we have | F ′ | ≤ O(2| F |) = O(| F |) (same
argument).
(b) Start with an empty graph G ( F ).
(c) For each pair (l, l ′ ) ∈ {l1 , l2 , . . . , ln }2 add the edge (l, l ′ ) to G ( F ) iff l → l ′ is a clause in F ′ .
There are O(| F |2 ) pairs (l, l ′ ) and O(2| F |) implications x → y in F ′ (to check against (l, l ′ )), so
this step requires O(| F |3 ) steps.
The algorithm follows the definition so it is obviously correct. It takes O(| F |) + O(| F |3 ) = O(| F |3 )
time and so is polynomial time, as desired.

1
3. Show that a 2-SAT instance F is unsatisfiable iff there exists a variable x such that there exists a path
from x to x and also a path from x to x in the associated graph as constructed in Question 2.

A NSWER :

Note first that → is transitive and the existence of a path ( a1 , a2 , . . . , ak ) in G ( F ) means that the
following implication chain can be inferred from F: a1 → a2 → · · · → ak . Therefore:

( a1 , a2 , . . . , ak ) is a path in G ( F ) iff a1 → ak according to F (1)

If : Let F be some unsatisfiable formula, and assume that there is no path from x to x for any literal x
such that there exists a path from x to x in G ( F ). Then the truth assignment that makes x false (and so
x true) will satisfy x → x (by Relation (1)). We now repeat such a truth assignment for all paths from
x to x. This assignment will not make any implication in F false, for indeed we assumed that no path
from x to x exists. Now take all the other paths, and assign truth values that make the corresponding
implications true. Such an interpretation makes F true, since there are no cycles that contain both x
and x. F is therefore satisfiable, a contradiction.
Only if : The path from x to x in G ( F ) means that x → x in F by Relation (1). Similarly we have x → x
in F so overall ( x → x) ∧ ( x → x). This formula is unsatisfiable, and therefore so is F, as desired.
Indeed, ( x → x) ∧ ( x → x) = ( x ∨ x) ∧ ( x ∨ x) = x ∧ x = False.

4. Based on your findings from Question 3 show that 2-SAT ∈ P .

A NSWER :

The following algorithm will solve 2-SAT in polynomial time:


(a) Set satisfiable to True.
(b) Construct the graph G ( F ) corresponding to the given formula F as in Question 2.
This step takes O(| F |3 ) time (see Question 2).
(c) For each literal l from F:
• Determine whether there is a path from l to l and from l to l. If this is the case then set
satisfiable to False.
Each of these two reachability problems can be solved using some state-space search algo-
rithm (such as backtracking) in time linear in the number of nodes in G ( F ). On the other
hand, the number of nodes in G ( F ) is O(2| F |) = O(| F |) and so this step takes O(| F |) time.
The whole loop takes O(| F |) × O(| F |) = O(| F |2 ) time.
(d) Report that F is satisfiable iff satisfiable = True.
That the algorithm solves 2-SAT follows immediately from Question 3. The time complexity is
O(| F |3 ) + O(| F |2 ) = O(| F |3 ) and so polynomial. Therefore 2-SAT ∈ P .

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy