Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Robertson–Seymour theorem
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Polynomial time recognition== The Robertson–Seymour theorem has an important consequence in computational complexity, due to the proof by Robertson and Seymour that, for each fixed graph <math>H</math>, there is a [[polynomial time]] algorithm for testing whether a graph has <math>H</math> as a minor. This algorithm's running time is cubic (in the size of the graph to check), though with a constant factor that depends superpolynomially on the size of the minor <math>H</math>. The running time has been improved to quadratic by Kawarabayashi, Kobayashi, and Reed.<ref>{{harvtxt|Kawarabayashi|Kobayashi|Reed|2012}}</ref> As a result, for every minor-closed family <math>\mathcal{F}</math>, there is polynomial time algorithm for testing whether a graph belongs to <math>\mathcal{F}</math>: check whether the given graph contains <math>H</math> for each forbidden minor <math>H</math> in the obstruction set of <math>\mathcal{F}</math>.<ref>{{harvtxt|Robertson|Seymour|1995}}; {{harvtxt|Bienstock|Langston|1995}}, Theorem 2.1.4 and Corollary 2.1.5; {{harvtxt|Lovász|2005}}, Theorem 11, p. 83.</ref> However, this method requires a specific finite obstruction set to work, and the theorem does not provide one. The theorem proves that such a finite obstruction set exists, and therefore the problem is polynomial because of the above algorithm. However, the algorithm can be used in practice only if such a finite obstruction set is provided. As a result, the theorem proves that the problem can be solved in polynomial time, but does not provide a concrete polynomial-time algorithm for solving it. Such proofs of polynomiality are [[non-constructive]]: they prove polynomiality of problems without providing an explicit polynomial-time algorithm.<ref>{{harvtxt|Fellows|Langston|1988}}; {{harvtxt|Bienstock|Langston|1995}}, Section 6.</ref> In many specific cases, checking whether a graph is in a given minor-closed family can be done more efficiently: for example, checking whether a graph is planar can be done in linear time.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)