Show that PARTITION is
NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM.
if
you have any doubt regarding this please let me know if you
understand the solution then please give me a thumbs up thanks
Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM. Given a set of integers, we say...
Given a set S of integers, we say that S can be partitioned if
it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u U
and all v V, u = v. Let PARTITION = { <S> | S can be
partitioned }.
a. (5) Show that PARTITION NP by writing either a verifier
or an NDTM.
b. (15) Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from
SUBSET-SUM.
9.(20) Given a set...
9. (20) Given a set of integers, we say that can be partitioned if it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u EU and all v € V, Eu = Ev. Let PARTITION = {<s> S can be partitioned }. a. (5) Show that PARTITION € NP by writing either a verifier or an NDTM. b. (15) Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM.
Given a set S of integers, we say that S can be partitioned if it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u Î U and all v Î V, Su = Sv. Let PARTITION = { | S can be partitioned }. Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM
Given a set S of integers, we say that S can be partitioned if it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u U and all v V, u = v. Let PARTITION = { | S can be partitioned }. a. (5) Show that PARTITION NP by writing either a verifier or an NDTM. b. (15) Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM.
Show that PARTITION NP by writing either a verifier or an
NDTM.
Given a set of integers, we say that can be partitioned if it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u EU and all v € V, Eu = Ev. Let PARTITION = {<s> S can be partitioned ). a. (5) Show that PARTITION E NP by writing either a verifier or an NDTM.
Given a set S of integers, we say that S can be partitioned if it can be split into two sets U and V so that considering all u ∈ U and all v ∈ V, Σu = Σ v. Let PARTITION = { <S>| S can be partitioned }. a. (5) Show that PARTITION ∈ NP by writing either a verifier or an NDTM b. (15) Show that PARTITION is NP-complete by reduction from SUBSET-SUM.
* SUBSET-SUM-kS, t> I S -[xi Xk] and for some lyı yn)cIxi.... xk) the sum of the yi's equals t. For example, <S-2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 14], t-21> is in SUBSET-SUM because 3+7 11-21. xk) can be partitioned into two parts A and -A where -A * SET-PARTITION <S> S-Ixi S-A and the sum of the elements in A is equal to the sum of the elements in A. For example, 〈 S-12, 3, 4, 7, 8/> works because...
Problem 2. In the Subset-Sum problem the input consists of a set of positive integers X = {x1, . . . , xn}, and some integer k. The answer is YES if and only if there exists some subset of X that sums to k. In the Bipartition problem the input consists of a set of positive integers Y = {y1, . . . , yn}. The answer is YES if and only if there exists some subset of X...
Show that the decision version of the knapsack problem is NP-complete. (Hint: In your reduction, make use of the partition problem: given n positive integers, partition them into two disjoint subsets with the same sum of their elements. The partition problem is NP-complete.)
We know that MAJSAT is PP-complete. Is it generally true that given an NP-complete problem, its majority variant is PP-complete? For example, MAJ-Set-Splitting: are the majority of partitions of items going to split the sets? MAJ-Subset-Sum: does the majority of partitions of items have a sum of exactly K? etc...