Hey everyone, I made a video earlier on this topic, but looking at it again, I felt it was incomplete, so I decided to re-edit it and make it more concise. If you saw the previous video, it’s mostly the same content, though I did add more details on how to find augmenting paths using breadth-first search. I have a new video coming soon on weighted bipartite matchings… stay tuned!
wow you nailed it man, this should be a tutorial on how to make a tutorial, gold standard. The explanation, the pace, the background music, the visual aid everything is just perfect! The only question left is, while you are at maximizing job matching, can you assign me to a job at google? :p
This was a spectacular video. I'm currently studying for a graph theory course as a math major and this video perfectly explains alot of the concepts in my course.
one direction is trivial. For the other one, you assume you have a non-maximum matching M with no augmenting path. Pick any maximum matching M'. Consider the edge-induced subgraph induced by the symmetric difference of the edge sets of the matchings. In that graph, all vertices have degree
Hey everyone, I made a video earlier on this topic, but looking at it again, I felt it was incomplete, so I decided to re-edit it and make it more concise. If you saw the previous video, it’s mostly the same content, though I did add more details on how to find augmenting paths using breadth-first search.
I have a new video coming soon on weighted bipartite matchings… stay tuned!
Your videos are fantastic!
k-partite please
This is an incredible video!! Thank you so much, absolutely a life saver
wow you nailed it man, this should be a tutorial on how to make a tutorial, gold standard. The explanation, the pace, the background music, the visual aid everything is just perfect!
The only question left is, while you are at maximizing job matching, can you assign me to a job at google? :p
This was a spectacular video. I'm currently studying for a graph theory course as a math major and this video perfectly explains alot of the concepts in my course.
The explanation was very clear, and I appreciated the effort put into the animations.
thank you ! Relly helpful,i is much more clear than what is taught on our lessons
Wonderful video. Greetings from Türkiye.
Favorite video so far!
Great video! Would love for you to explain why Berge's Theorem is true, that was my only concern. Very great video!
one direction is trivial. For the other one, you assume you have a non-maximum matching M with no augmenting path. Pick any maximum matching M'. Consider the edge-induced subgraph induced by the symmetric difference of the edge sets of the matchings. In that graph, all vertices have degree
Learnt a lot, thanks.
Thanks!
At 0:52 Cathy didnt get any job?
Excellent video. Love form Pakistan