Jump to content

Talk:Push–relabel maximum flow algorithm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 8 February 2012 (Signing comment by 91.17.171.95 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I believe the third condition defining a preflow should read excess(v) (not u) for all nodes v (not u) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.171.95 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject iconMathematics Start‑class Low‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

I think "Push" :

height(u) = height(v) + 1. Can only send to lower node.

should be changed to

height(u) > height(v). Can only send to lower node.

because height(s) is set to |V| initially.

  • . Sum of flow to and from u.

Is it really a sum? I would call it a difference between those if that's not my wrong sense of English.

--MBIK (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For the Push thing, it shouldnt be changed, as you can only push flow to lower node whose height is exactly 1 unit smaller than the node from which the push originates. You cannot push from u to v if height(u)-height(v) > 1 because such edges are not a part of the residual graph due to the height function constraints. The only exception to this is sending flow from source to its neighbors but that is considered a part of the initialization and cannot be reproduced during algorithm work.

As for the other question, it is formally defined as a sum of flow to a node, but your proposition seems good to me as it is generally simpler and more intuitive, especially for wiki purposes.

Nikolicdejan (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]