7 research outputs found

    Diagonalizing the Frobenius

    Get PDF
    Over a Noetherian, local ring R of prime characteristic p, the Frobenius functor F induces a diagonalizable map on certain quotients of rational Grothendieck groups. This leads to an explicit formula for the Dutta multiplicity, and it is shown that a weaker version of Serre's vanishing conjecture holds if only chi(F(X)) = p^{dim R}chi(X) for all bounded complexes X of finitely generated, projective modules with finite length homology.Comment: Revised (simplified) version. 12 page

    Near-optimal labeling schemes for nearest common ancestors

    Full text link
    We consider NCA labeling schemes: given a rooted tree TT, label the nodes of TT with binary strings such that, given the labels of any two nodes, one can determine, by looking only at the labels, the label of their nearest common ancestor. For trees with nn nodes we present upper and lower bounds establishing that labels of size (2±ϵ)logn(2\pm \epsilon)\log n, ϵ<1\epsilon<1 are both sufficient and necessary. (All logarithms in this paper are in base 2.) Alstrup, Bille, and Rauhe (SIDMA'05) showed that ancestor and NCA labeling schemes have labels of size logn+Ω(loglogn)\log n +\Omega(\log \log n). Our lower bound increases this to logn+Ω(logn)\log n + \Omega(\log n) for NCA labeling schemes. Since Fraigniaud and Korman (STOC'10) established that labels in ancestor labeling schemes have size logn+Θ(loglogn)\log n +\Theta(\log \log n), our new lower bound separates ancestor and NCA labeling schemes. Our upper bound improves the 10logn10 \log n upper bound by Alstrup, Gavoille, Kaplan and Rauhe (TOCS'04), and our theoretical result even outperforms some recent experimental studies by Fischer (ESA'09) where variants of the same NCA labeling scheme are shown to all have labels of size approximately 8logn8 \log n

    Simpler, faster and shorter labels for distances in graphs

    Full text link
    We consider how to assign labels to any undirected graph with n nodes such that, given the labels of two nodes and no other information regarding the graph, it is possible to determine the distance between the two nodes. The challenge in such a distance labeling scheme is primarily to minimize the maximum label lenght and secondarily to minimize the time needed to answer distance queries (decoding). Previous schemes have offered different trade-offs between label lengths and query time. This paper presents a simple algorithm with shorter labels and shorter query time than any previous solution, thereby improving the state-of-the-art with respect to both label length and query time in one single algorithm. Our solution addresses several open problems concerning label length and decoding time and is the first improvement of label length for more than three decades. More specifically, we present a distance labeling scheme with label size (log 3)/2 + o(n) (logarithms are in base 2) and O(1) decoding time. This outperforms all existing results with respect to both size and decoding time, including Winkler's (Combinatorica 1983) decade-old result, which uses labels of size (log 3)n and O(n/log n) decoding time, and Gavoille et al. (SODA'01), which uses labels of size 11n + o(n) and O(loglog n) decoding time. In addition, our algorithm is simpler than the previous ones. In the case of integral edge weights of size at most W, we present almost matching upper and lower bounds for label sizes. For r-additive approximation schemes, where distances can be off by an additive constant r, we give both upper and lower bounds. In particular, we present an upper bound for 1-additive approximation schemes which, in the unweighted case, has the same size (ignoring second order terms) as an adjacency scheme: n/2. We also give results for bipartite graphs and for exact and 1-additive distance oracles

    Distance labeling schemes for trees

    Get PDF
    We consider distance labeling schemes for trees: given a tree with nn nodes, label the nodes with binary strings such that, given the labels of any two nodes, one can determine, by looking only at the labels, the distance in the tree between the two nodes. A lower bound by Gavoille et. al. (J. Alg. 2004) and an upper bound by Peleg (J. Graph Theory 2000) establish that labels must use Θ(log2n)\Theta(\log^2 n) bits\footnote{Throughout this paper we use log\log for log2\log_2.}. Gavoille et. al. (ESA 2001) show that for very small approximate stretch, labels use Θ(lognloglogn)\Theta(\log n \log \log n) bits. Several other papers investigate various variants such as, for example, small distances in trees (Alstrup et. al., SODA'03). We improve the known upper and lower bounds of exact distance labeling by showing that 14log2n\frac{1}{4} \log^2 n bits are needed and that 12log2n\frac{1}{2} \log^2 n bits are sufficient. We also give (1+ϵ1+\epsilon)-stretch labeling schemes using Θ(logn)\Theta(\log n) bits for constant ϵ>0\epsilon>0. (1+ϵ1+\epsilon)-stretch labeling schemes with polylogarithmic label size have previously been established for doubling dimension graphs by Talwar (STOC 2004). In addition, we present matching upper and lower bounds for distance labeling for caterpillars, showing that labels must have size 2lognΘ(loglogn)2\log n - \Theta(\log\log n). For simple paths with kk nodes and edge weights in [1,n][1,n], we show that labels must have size k1klogn+Θ(logk)\frac{k-1}{k}\log n+\Theta(\log k)

    Grothendieck groups for categories of complexes

    No full text
    corecore