Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Counting the number of bipartite matchings is #P-hard. Thus every #SAT problem can be reduced to counting the number of bipartite matchings. If a SAT problem is unsatisfiable however, it will have 0 solutions and thus the corresponding bipartite matching problem will have 0 solutions which is detectable in polynomial time (since a single bipartite matching can be found in polynomial time).

This would enable us to solve SAT in poly-time. What's going wrong with this reasoning?

share|cite|improve this question
What, precisely, are the requirements on the reductions you're working with here? Are you sure that "$>0$ satisfactions" has to reduce to a problem instance of the form "$>0$ bipartite matchings"? – Henning Makholm Nov 9 '11 at 2:17
The reduction I'm working of is given here… – PartialD Nov 9 '11 at 2:18
From the description of the reduction, it seems that the number of #SAT solutions is equal to the number of bipartite matchings multiplied by a constant - so the answer to your question is yes. – PartialD Nov 9 '11 at 6:15
It's a different notion of reduction. It is not true that the reduction maps unsatisfable SAT instances to 01 matrices with permanent 0. See… – sdcvvc Nov 9 '11 at 18:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.