Hall's Marriage Theorem for correspondence












2












$begingroup$


Let $A={A_1,....A_n}$ be a collection of subsets of a finite set $X$. A selection for $A$ is the image of an injective function $f:Ato X$ such that $ f(A_i)in A_i$ for every $A_iin A$.



Hall's marriage theorem shows that , $A$ has a selection if and only if for each subset $Ssubseteq A$,



$$|S|leq |cup_{iin S} A_i|.$$



I wonder if it is possible to generalize this result and obtain a similar condition for a choice correspondence $f:Arightrightarrows X $ that selects for each $A_i$ more than one elements, i.e. $f(A_i)subset A_i$ and $|f(A_i)|=2$ and all selected elements are distinct.



Any ideas or suggestions?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Let $A={A_1,....A_n}$ be a collection of subsets of a finite set $X$. A selection for $A$ is the image of an injective function $f:Ato X$ such that $ f(A_i)in A_i$ for every $A_iin A$.



    Hall's marriage theorem shows that , $A$ has a selection if and only if for each subset $Ssubseteq A$,



    $$|S|leq |cup_{iin S} A_i|.$$



    I wonder if it is possible to generalize this result and obtain a similar condition for a choice correspondence $f:Arightrightarrows X $ that selects for each $A_i$ more than one elements, i.e. $f(A_i)subset A_i$ and $|f(A_i)|=2$ and all selected elements are distinct.



    Any ideas or suggestions?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Let $A={A_1,....A_n}$ be a collection of subsets of a finite set $X$. A selection for $A$ is the image of an injective function $f:Ato X$ such that $ f(A_i)in A_i$ for every $A_iin A$.



      Hall's marriage theorem shows that , $A$ has a selection if and only if for each subset $Ssubseteq A$,



      $$|S|leq |cup_{iin S} A_i|.$$



      I wonder if it is possible to generalize this result and obtain a similar condition for a choice correspondence $f:Arightrightarrows X $ that selects for each $A_i$ more than one elements, i.e. $f(A_i)subset A_i$ and $|f(A_i)|=2$ and all selected elements are distinct.



      Any ideas or suggestions?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Let $A={A_1,....A_n}$ be a collection of subsets of a finite set $X$. A selection for $A$ is the image of an injective function $f:Ato X$ such that $ f(A_i)in A_i$ for every $A_iin A$.



      Hall's marriage theorem shows that , $A$ has a selection if and only if for each subset $Ssubseteq A$,



      $$|S|leq |cup_{iin S} A_i|.$$



      I wonder if it is possible to generalize this result and obtain a similar condition for a choice correspondence $f:Arightrightarrows X $ that selects for each $A_i$ more than one elements, i.e. $f(A_i)subset A_i$ and $|f(A_i)|=2$ and all selected elements are distinct.



      Any ideas or suggestions?







      combinatorics discrete-mathematics graph-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 30 '18 at 4:48









      samsam

      134




      134






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, this is a straightforward extension. Instead of the sequence
          $$A_1,A_2,ldots,A_n$$
          consider the sequence
          $$A_1,A_1,A_2,A_2,ldots,A_n,A_n.$$
          The Hall condition for this sequence amounts to
          $$left|bigcup_{iin S}A_iright|ge2|S|.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great. Thanks for your answer!
            $endgroup$
            – sam
            Nov 30 '18 at 5:27










          • $begingroup$
            @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            Nov 30 '18 at 12:51











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019663%2fhalls-marriage-theorem-for-correspondence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, this is a straightforward extension. Instead of the sequence
          $$A_1,A_2,ldots,A_n$$
          consider the sequence
          $$A_1,A_1,A_2,A_2,ldots,A_n,A_n.$$
          The Hall condition for this sequence amounts to
          $$left|bigcup_{iin S}A_iright|ge2|S|.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great. Thanks for your answer!
            $endgroup$
            – sam
            Nov 30 '18 at 5:27










          • $begingroup$
            @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            Nov 30 '18 at 12:51
















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, this is a straightforward extension. Instead of the sequence
          $$A_1,A_2,ldots,A_n$$
          consider the sequence
          $$A_1,A_1,A_2,A_2,ldots,A_n,A_n.$$
          The Hall condition for this sequence amounts to
          $$left|bigcup_{iin S}A_iright|ge2|S|.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great. Thanks for your answer!
            $endgroup$
            – sam
            Nov 30 '18 at 5:27










          • $begingroup$
            @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            Nov 30 '18 at 12:51














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Yes, this is a straightforward extension. Instead of the sequence
          $$A_1,A_2,ldots,A_n$$
          consider the sequence
          $$A_1,A_1,A_2,A_2,ldots,A_n,A_n.$$
          The Hall condition for this sequence amounts to
          $$left|bigcup_{iin S}A_iright|ge2|S|.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Yes, this is a straightforward extension. Instead of the sequence
          $$A_1,A_2,ldots,A_n$$
          consider the sequence
          $$A_1,A_1,A_2,A_2,ldots,A_n,A_n.$$
          The Hall condition for this sequence amounts to
          $$left|bigcup_{iin S}A_iright|ge2|S|.$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 30 '18 at 5:12









          Lord Shark the UnknownLord Shark the Unknown

          104k1160132




          104k1160132












          • $begingroup$
            Great. Thanks for your answer!
            $endgroup$
            – sam
            Nov 30 '18 at 5:27










          • $begingroup$
            @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            Nov 30 '18 at 12:51


















          • $begingroup$
            Great. Thanks for your answer!
            $endgroup$
            – sam
            Nov 30 '18 at 5:27










          • $begingroup$
            @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            Nov 30 '18 at 12:51
















          $begingroup$
          Great. Thanks for your answer!
          $endgroup$
          – sam
          Nov 30 '18 at 5:27




          $begingroup$
          Great. Thanks for your answer!
          $endgroup$
          – sam
          Nov 30 '18 at 5:27












          $begingroup$
          @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
          $endgroup$
          – bof
          Nov 30 '18 at 12:51




          $begingroup$
          @sam This doesn't work very well with your (incorrect) definition of a choice function. You should define a choice function as an injection $f:{1,2,dots,n}to X$ instead of an injection $f:{A_1,A_2,dots,A_n}to X$ for just this reason, that you don't want to require the sets $A_i$ to be distinct.
          $endgroup$
          – bof
          Nov 30 '18 at 12:51


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019663%2fhalls-marriage-theorem-for-correspondence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

          Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

          Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?