Skip to main content

The Gale-Ryser Theorem

This is a small aside. While reading a paper by Grüner, Laue, and Meringer on generation by homomorphism they mentioned the Gale-Ryser (GR) theorem. As it turns out, this is a nice small theorem closely related to the better known Erdős-Gallai (EG).

So, GR says that given two partitions of an integer (p and q) there exists a (0, 1) matrix A iff p* dominates q such that the row sum vector r(A) = p and the column sum vector c(A) = q.

As with most mathematics, that's quite terse and full of terminology like 'dominates' : but it's relatively simple. Here is an example:



The partitions p and q are at the top left, they both sum to 10. Next, p is transposed to get p* = [5, 4, 1] and this is compared to q at the bottom left. Since the sum at each point in the sequence is greater (or equal) for p* than q, the former dominates. One possible matrix is at the top left with the row sum vector to the right, and the column sum vector below.

Finally, the matrix can be interpreted as a bipartite graph as shown in the lower right panel. There is an edge between vertices (i, j) if there is a 1 in the cell for (i, j) in the matrix. It's quite hard to see the connections on a graph drawn like this, but it should be clear that there are only edges between the two sets {0, 1, 2, 3} and {4, 5, 6, 7, 8} and not within these.

There's a nice proof by Manfred Krause of the theorem, and a very readable slideshow on the relationship between GR and EG here called "Variations on the Erdos-Gallai" by Grant Cairns.

Comments

Prueba said…
Very nice post and references. Just a little issue: the lower left box in the example should say sum(q) instead of sum(q*), right?
gilleain said…
Ah! Good spot - now changed. Thank you for pointing it out.
Rodrigo said…
Hi! Nice explanation!
I'm not sure about how this theorem will deal with a matrix like the sums are p = [0,0,3], q = [0,0,3]. I know that is not a valid (binary) matrix , but it seems that the theorem is telling me otherwise.
Can you help me with that?
gilleain said…
Hi Rodrigo,

Well, [0,0,3] is not a valid partition either. Another way to think about it is that such a sequence could never be the degree sequence of a simple connected graph, since two of the vertices would necessarily be disconnected since they have degree 0.

Popular posts from this blog

Generating Dungeons With BSP Trees or Sliceable Rectangles

So, I admit that the original reason for looking at sliceable rectangles was because of this gaming stackoverflow question about generating dungeon maps. The approach described there uses something called a binary split partition tree (BSP Tree) that's usually used in the context of 3D - notably in the rendering engine of the game Doom. Here is a BSP tree, as an example:



In the image, we have a sliced rectangle on the left, with the final rectangles labelled with letters (A-E) and the slices with numbers (1-4). The corresponding tree is on the right, with the slices as internal nodes labelled with 'h' for horizontal and 'v' for vertical. Naturally, only the leaves correspond to rectangles, and each internal node has two children - it's a binary tree.

So what is the connection between such trees and the sliceable dual graphs? Well, the rectangles are related in exactly the expected way:


Here, the same BSP tree is on the left (without some labels), and the slicea…

Common Vertex Matrices of Graphs

There is an interesting set of papers out this year by Milan Randic et al (sorry about the accents - blogger seems to have a problem with accented 'c'...). I've looked at his work before here.

[1] Common vertex matrix: A novel characterization of molecular graphs by counting
[2] On the centrality of vertices of molecular graphs

and one still in publication to do with fullerenes. The central idea here (ho ho) is a graph descriptor a bit like path lengths called 'centrality'. Briefly, it is the count of neighbourhood intersections between pairs of vertices. Roughly this is illustrated here:


For the selected pair of vertices, the common vertices are those at the same distance from each - one at a distance of two and one at a distance of three. The matrix element for this pair will be the sum - 2 - and this is repeated for all pairs in the graph. Naturally, this is symmetric:


At the right of the matrix is the row sum (∑) which can be ordered to provide a graph invarian…

Signatures with user-defined edge colors

A bug in the CDK implementation of my signature library turned out to be due to the fact that the bond colors were hard coded to just recognise the labels {"-", "=", "#" }. The relevant code section even had an XXX above it!

Poor show, but it's finally fixed now. So that means I can handle user-defined edge colors/labels - consider the complete graph (K5) below:

So the red/blue colors here are simply those of a chessboard imposed on top of the adjacency matrix - shown here on the right. You might expect there to be at least two vertex signature classes here : {0, 2, 4} and {1, 3} where the first class has vertices with two blue and two red edges, and the second has three blue and two red.

Indeed, here's what happens for K4 to K7:

Clearly even-numbered complete graphs have just one vertex class, while odd-numbered ones have two (at least?). There is a similar situation for complete bipartite graphs:

Although I haven't explored any more of these…