Problem​ ​3

For​ ​this​ ​problem,​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​the​ ​independent​ ​set​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​np-complete,​ ​and​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to​ ​show
that​ ​the​ ​difficulty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​induced​ ​matching​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​also​ ​just​ ​as​ ​hard​ ​as​ ​the​ ​difficulty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​independent
set​ ​problem,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​np-complete.

We​ ​start​ ​by​ ​listing​ ​the​ ​requirements​ ​for​ ​an​ ​np-complete​ ​problem:

An​ ​np-complete​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​both​ ​NP​ ​verifiable​ ​and​ ​is​ ​np-hard.​ ​We’ll​ ​start​ ​by​ ​showing​ ​that​ ​the
problem​ ​is​ ​NP-hard.​ ​We​ ​use​ ​the​ ​following​ ​proof​ ​by​ ​contradiction,​ ​ensuring​ ​that​ ​our​ ​reduction​ ​will​ ​get​ ​us​ ​a
solution​ ​that​ ​is​ ​p-time:

Let​ ​us​ ​denote​ ​the​ ​Independent​ ​set​ ​problem​ ​as​ ​IS,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​induced​ ​matching​ ​problem​ ​as​ ​IM.
Assume​ ​that​ ​we​ ​have​ ​a​ ​black​ ​box​ ​that​ ​is​ ​able​ ​to​ ​solve​ ​IM.​ ​If​ ​we​ ​assume​ ​that​ ​IM​ ​is​ ​solvable​ ​in
p-time,​ ​then​ ​IS​ ​is​ ​also​ ​solvable​ ​in​ ​p-time,​ ​because​ ​we​ ​can​ ​use​ ​the​ ​subroutine​ ​of​ ​the​ ​black​ ​box​ ​for​ ​IM​ ​to​ ​get
the​ ​solution​ ​for​ ​IS.​ ​We​ ​can​ ​picture​ ​the​ ​relationship​ ​of​ ​IS​ ​and​ ​IM​ ​using​ ​the​ ​diagram​ ​below:

We​ ​need​ ​to​ ​show​ ​a​ ​bidirectional​ ​relationship​ ​between​ ​solving​ ​IS​ ​and​ ​solving​ ​IM,​ ​that​ ​is:

If​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​an​ ​input​ ​for​ ​IS​ ​will​ ​find​ ​a​ ​solution,​ ​then​ ​that​ ​means​ ​that​ ​the​ ​transformed​ ​input​ ​for
IM​ ​will​ ​also​ ​find​ ​a​ ​solution.​ ​Likewise,​ ​if​ ​transforming​ ​the​ ​input​ ​and​ ​putting​ ​it​ ​into​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​will​ ​find​ ​a
solution,​ ​then​ ​putting​ ​the​ ​original​ ​input​ ​into​ ​IS​ ​will​ ​also​ ​find​ ​a​ ​solution.

We​ ​start​ ​with​ ​the​ ​first​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proof:

Suppose​ ​that​ ​we​ ​have​ ​a​ ​graph​ ​G​ ​with​ ​a​ ​value​ ​k,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​these​ ​inputs​ ​can​ ​be​ ​put​ ​into
the​ ​IS​ ​problem,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​will​ ​output​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​to​ ​the​ ​problem.​ ​Notice​ ​that​ ​the​ ​nodes​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​set​ ​are
not​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​any​ ​other​ ​node​ ​in​ ​the​ ​set.
 ​​

Example:​ ​A​ ​and​ ​D​ ​are​ ​the​ ​independent​ ​set,​ ​so​ ​k​ ​=​ ​2.

We​ ​need​ ​to​ ​transform​ ​this​ ​graph​ ​to​ ​be​ ​used​ ​as​ ​input​ ​for​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem.​ ​We​ ​notice​ ​that​ ​we​ ​can​ ​add​ ​an
edge​ ​to​ ​all​ ​existing​ ​nodes,​ ​and​ ​attach​ ​a​ ​new​ ​node​ ​to​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​newly​ ​added​ ​edges;​ ​this​ ​will​ ​not​ ​affect
the​ ​original​ ​graph​ ​nor​ ​the​ ​relationships​ ​existing​ ​between​ ​the​ ​original​ ​nodes.​ ​For​ ​each​ ​node​ ​X​ ​in​ ​the
original​ ​graph​ ​G,​ ​we​ ​let​ ​X’​ ​be​ ​the​ ​new​ ​node​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​X​ ​in​ ​the​ ​new​ ​graph​ ​G’.

Example:​ ​Here,​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​induced​ ​matching​ ​would​ ​be​ ​(A,​ ​A’)​ ​and​ ​(D,​ ​D’)
 This​ ​new​ ​graph​ ​G’​ ​and​ ​the​ ​original​ ​k​ ​value​ ​is​ ​now​ ​passed​ ​into​ ​IM​ ​black​ ​box.​ ​The​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​is
able​ ​to​ ​find​ ​a​ ​solution​ ​where​ ​there​ ​are​ ​k​ ​pairs​ ​in​ ​an​ ​induced​ ​matching.​ ​The​ ​way​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​black​ ​box​ ​finds​ ​a
solution​ ​is​ ​by​ ​simply​ ​matching​ ​each​ ​X​ ​node​ ​with​ ​its​ ​corresponding​ ​X’​ ​node.​ ​Because​ ​there​ ​were​ ​k​ ​nodes
in​ ​the​ ​IS,​ ​there​ ​will​ ​be​ ​k​ ​pairs​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IM.​ ​We​ ​know​ ​that​ ​this​ ​is​ ​guaranteed​ ​because​ ​for​ ​each​ ​node​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS,
there​ ​were​ ​no​ ​other​ ​nodes​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​that​ ​were​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​it.​ ​We​ ​also​ ​know​ ​that​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​way​ ​we
transformed​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​G,​ ​all​ ​X’​ ​nodes​ ​are​ ​not​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​any​ ​other​ ​node​ ​in​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​graph​ ​with​ ​the
exception​ ​of​ ​its​ ​corresponding​ ​X​ ​node.​ ​Because​ ​of​ ​these​ ​conditions,​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​these​ ​X,​ ​X’​ ​pairs​ ​of
nodes​ ​will​ ​satisfy​ ​the​ ​constraints​ ​of​ ​an​ ​IM​ ​problem,​ ​that​ ​is,​ ​each​ ​pair​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​connected​ ​to
any​ ​other​ ​pair​ ​by​ ​any​ ​edge​ ​in​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​G’.

Thus,​ ​we’ve​ ​shown​ ​that​ ​if​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​problem​ ​finds​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​given​ ​G​ ​and​ ​k,​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem
will​ ​also​ ​find​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​given​ ​G’​ ​and​ ​k.

Now​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to​ ​do​ ​the​ ​second​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proof:

Suppose​ ​this​ ​time​ ​that​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​given​ ​a​ ​G’​ ​graph​ ​(that​ ​has​ ​been​ ​modified​ ​the​ ​way​ ​we
specified​ ​above)​ ​and​ ​k​ ​value​ ​can​ ​be​ ​inputted​ ​into​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution.​ ​We​ ​need​ ​to
examine​ ​a​ ​couple​ ​of​ ​cases​ ​for​ ​the​ ​different​ ​types​ ​of​ ​matchings​ ​in​ ​G’:

We​ ​know​ ​that​ ​there​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​an​ ​X’,​ ​Y’​ ​pairing​ ​in​ ​G’​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​constraints​ ​that​ ​we​ ​put​ ​on
the​ ​transformation​ ​of​ ​G.​ ​Thus,​ ​we​ ​don’t​ ​need​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​this​ ​case.

For​ ​any​ ​X,​ ​X’​ ​pairing​ ​in​ ​G’,​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​in​ ​the​ ​original​ ​graph​ ​G,​ ​X​ ​will​ ​be​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS.

For​ ​any​ ​X,​ ​Y​ ​pairing​ ​in​ ​G’,​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​both​ ​in​ ​the​ ​original​ ​graph​ ​G,​ ​so​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​problem
can​ ​just​ ​pick​ ​either​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​nodes​ ​to​ ​be​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS.

Putting​ ​these​ ​all​ ​together,​ ​we​ ​construct​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​on​ ​the​ ​original​ ​graph​ ​G​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​pairs​ ​in​ ​G’.

Finding​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​for​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​problem,​ ​given​ ​G​ ​and​ ​k,​ ​ ​is​ ​guaranteed​ ​because,​ ​upon​ ​reverting
G’​ ​back​ ​to​ ​G,​ ​we​ ​notice​ ​that​ ​any​ ​nodes​ ​that​ ​are​ ​in​ ​different​ ​pairs​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​are​ ​non-adjacent​ ​to​ ​each​ ​in​ ​G’,
and​ ​as​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​if​ ​those​ ​nodes​ ​are​ ​also​ ​in​ ​G,​ ​then​ ​they​ ​will​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​remain​ ​non-adjacent​ ​in​ ​G;
therefore,​ ​those​ ​nodes​ ​will​ ​also​ ​be​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​of​ ​G.

Thus,​ ​we’ve​ ​shown​ ​that​ ​if​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​will​ ​find​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​given​ ​G’​ ​and​ ​k,​ ​then​ ​the​ ​IS
problem​ ​will​ ​also​ ​find​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​solution​ ​given​ ​G​ ​and​ ​k.

We’ve​ ​proven​ ​both​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​our​ ​claim;​ ​hence,​ ​we’ve​ ​shown​ ​that​ ​if​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​can​ ​be​ ​solved
in​ ​p-time,​ ​then​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​problem​ ​can​ ​also​ ​be​ ​solved​ ​in​ ​p-time.​ ​However,​ ​we​ ​know​ ​that​ ​the​ ​IS​ ​problem
cannot​ ​be​ ​solved​ ​in​ ​p-time,​ ​so​ ​we’ve​ ​reached​ ​a​ ​contradiction.​ ​Thus,​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​can​ ​only​ ​be​ ​solved​ ​in
np-time,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​follows​ ​that​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​np-hard.
 To​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​np,​ ​we​ ​need​ ​a​ ​verifier​ ​that​ ​shows​ ​that,​ ​given​ ​a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​nodes
produced​ ​from​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem,​ ​we​ ​can​ ​verify​ ​that​ ​the​ ​set​ ​is​ ​indeed​ ​an​ ​IM​ ​set​ ​in​ ​p​ ​time;​ ​that​ ​is,​ ​given​ ​any
random​ ​matching,​ ​it​ ​takes​ ​p-time​ ​to​ ​check​ ​that​ ​it​ ​satisfies​ ​the​ ​constraints​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem.

If​ ​there​ ​are​ ​k​ ​pairs​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​set​ ​of​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​G’,​ ​then​ ​for​ ​any​ ​pair​ ​in​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​set,​ ​the​ ​time​ ​to​ ​check
if​ ​any​ ​pair​ ​is​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​any​ ​other​ ​pair​ ​is​ ​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​O(k)​ ​time.​ ​Doing​ ​this​ ​for​ ​all​ ​pairs​ ​gets​ ​us​ ​a​ ​runtime
of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​O(k^2).​ ​This​ ​is​ ​indeed​ ​polynomial​ ​time.​ ​Hence,​ ​we’ve​ ​shown​ ​that​ ​the​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​np.

Since​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​both​ ​np​ ​and​ ​np-hard,​ ​the​ ​IM​ ​problem​ ​is​ ​also​ ​np-complete.