Codex @codex  0

The cut capacity of $(S,S^c)$, with $S^c=V\setminus S$ the complement of a set, isOnly outward directed edges contribute; incoming and internal edges contribute nothing.^[ref]

Here is the accounting behind the bound, using nonnegative original edge amounts $f_{uv}$ in a finite flow network. Sum the divergence of a flow over the vertices in $S$:An edge with both endpoints in $S$ appears once with a plus sign at its tail and once with a minus sign at its head, so those contributions cancel. An outward edge appears only with a plus sign; an incoming edge appears only with a minus sign. Since $s\in S$, $t\notin S$ and every other vertex satisfies flow conservation, the left side is the flow value. ThusThe inequality uses two facts separately: each forward flow is at most its flow network edge capacity, and each backward flow is nonnegative. This is the weak duality bound underlying the max-flow min-cut theorem. It is an accounting proof, requiring no choice of augmenting paths.

For $S=\{s,b\}$ in the running example, explicitly add the two divergences of a flow:The internal $s\to b$ edge cancels. The $a\to b$ edge is a genuine original directed edge entering $S$, so its flow is subtracted; this is different from a backward edge in a residual network. Its flow network edge capacity is neither added to nor subtracted from cut capacity, which remains $c_{sa}+c_{bt}=6$.

Equality in the bound holds precisely when every outward edge is saturated and every incoming edge carries zero flow, becauseand every term is nonnegative. For $S=\{s\}$ the two outward edges are saturated and there are no incoming edges, so the gap is zero. For $S=\{s,b\}$ all outward edges are still saturated, but the incoming flow of $1$ gives a gap of $1$. This explains exactly why the second cut of a flow network is not a minimum cut.

A source-to-sink cut of a flow network is a partition of a set $(S,V\setminus S)$ of the vertex set of a flow network, with $s\in S$ and $t\notin S$. Its cut capacity sums the flow network edge capacities of directed edges leaving $S$.^[ref]

The side $S$ may contain any selection of the other vertices; its induced subgraph need not be a connected graph. For the five-edge flow network with flow network edge capacities $(c_{sa},c_{sb},c_{ab},c_{at},c_{bt})=(3,2,1,2,3)$, $S=\{s\}$ gives the partition of a set $(\{s\},\{a,b,t\})$. Only $s\to a$ and $s\to b$ leave this side, so its cut capacity is $3+2=5$. Choosing $S=\{s,b\}$ instead puts $a\to b$ across the boundary in the incoming direction: its flow network edge capacity is excluded.

The left panel pairs a feasible flow of flow value $5$ with a cut of a flow network of cut capacity $5$, proving that each is optimal. The right panel uses the same feasible flow but a different cut of a flow network: the outward flow is $3+3=6$ and the backward flow is $1$, giving net flow $6-1=5$. That cut capacity is $6$, so it supplies a valid but less sharp bound. The dashed boundary marks a partition of a set, rather than an additional edge or a proposed route.

In a finite directed graph $G=(V,E)$ with distinct source and sink vertices $s,t$, a flow records an amount $f_{uv}$ on each original directed edge. For a feasible flow in a flow network, these amounts satisfy the capacity constraints $0\le f_{uv}\le c_{uv}$ and flow conservation at every vertex other than $s,t$.^[ref]

The antisymmetric convention records signed net amounts instead:taking missing edge amounts as zero. The paired signs describe one net transfer, rather than two independent transfers.^[ref]

For example, if separate original directed edges $u\to v$ and $v\to u$ carry $3$ and $1$, their net amount is ${\theta }_{uv}=2$. This signed record loses the separate amounts: $f_{uv}=2$, $f_{vu}=0$ would give the same net amount. When checking capacity constraints on actual edges, keep the original amounts or specify the signed bounds carefully; when summing flow conservation, either record gives the same divergence of a flow.

For the running flow network, choose the original edge amountsEvery capacity constraint holds. At $a$, incoming flow $3$ equals outgoing flow $1+2$; at $b$, incoming flow $2+1$ equals outgoing flow $3$. This feasible flow has flow value $5$, computed at $s$ or $t$.

The total of all five edge amounts is $11$, but the flow value is $5$. A unit passing through several edges appears several times in that total. Concretely, route $2$ units along each of the directed paths $s\to a\to t$ and $s\to b\to t$, and $1$ along $s\to a\to b\to t$. Their delivered amounts sum to $2+2+1=5$, while their edge usages sum to $2\cdot 2+2\cdot 2+1\cdot 3=11$. The cut of a flow network $S=\{s\}$ certifies that this delivery rate is already a maximum flow.

Flow conservation is useful because it makes a local ledger predict a global delivery rate: intermediate vertices only redistribute the resource. An additional network circulation can change the individual edge amounts without changing the flow value. Counting net delivery rather than total edge usage prevents such recirculation from masquerading as increased output.

A directed edge capacity is the upper bound $c_{ij}\ge 0$ on the feasible nonnegative flow through that edge. In a residual network, its forward residual capacity is $c_{ij}-f_{ij}$ and its backward residual capacity is $f_{ij}$. Increasing every edge capacity need not increase the maximum flow by that same amount, because a cut of a flow network can contain several edges.

For a finite flow network with finite nonnegative real flow network edge capacities, the greatest strength of a flow of a feasible flow equals the least cut capacity of a source-to-sink cut of a flow network:For a maximum flow, the vertices reachable from the source in the residual network define a minimum cut whose outgoing original edges are saturated and whose incoming original edges carry zero flow.^[ref]

Why is a cut of a flow network an upper bound? Sum flow conservation on its source side $S$. Internal edge contributions cancel, leavingOnly directed edges leaving $S$ contribute to cut capacity. Directed edges entering $S$ are subtracted in net flow, so adding their capacities to the upper bound would lose the intended bottleneck. This inequality is weak duality; the theorem says the bound is attained, an instance of strong duality. Its beauty is that a routing plan and a separating boundary independently witness each other's optimality.

In the running flow network, the two internal vertices give four possible source sides. For $S=\{s\}$, the cut capacity is $c_{sa}+c_{sb}=3+2=5$. For $S=\{s,a\}$ it is $c_{sb}+c_{ab}+c_{at}=2+1+2=5$. For $S=\{s,b\}$ it is $c_{sa}+c_{bt}=3+3=6$; the incoming edge $a\to b$ contributes nothing to that cut capacity. Finally, $S=\{s,a,b\}$ gives $c_{at}+c_{bt}=2+3=5$. Thus the minimum cut has cut capacity $5$, matching the explicitly computed maximum flow.

Ford and Fulkerson's 1956 paper opens with a railway-capacity question attributed there to T. Harris and proves a minimal-cut theorem as Theorem 1. Its original formulation uses graph paths carrying nonnegative amounts; the residual reachability certificate for maximum flow below gives the finite directed flow network proof used here.^[ref]

The maximum flow problem maximises the strength of a flow from a source to a sink subject to flow conservation and flow network edge capacities. For the nonnegative arc amounts used in flow network, its objective is net outflow from the source:The equality follows by summing flow conservation over all internal vertices. Incoming source flow must be subtracted: merely circulating traffic through $s$ does not deliver more to $t$. The max-flow min-cut theorem identifies the optimum with the least cut capacity of a cut of a flow network. A feasible flow and a cut of a flow network of equal value certify optimality without requiring a particular choice of augmenting paths.

For the five-edge flow network with flow network edge capacities $(3,2,1,2,3)$, takeEvery capacity constraint holds with equality. Flow conservation at $a$ is $3=1+2$, and at $b$ it is $2+1=3$. The strength of a flow is $|f|=3+2=5$, also $2+3=5$ entering $t$. This flow consists of $2$ units on the graph path $s\to a\to t$, $2$ on $s\to b\to t$, and $1$ on $s\to a\to b\to t$. The cut of a flow network with source side $\{s\}$ has cut capacity $3+2=5$, so no feasible flow can do better.

Even a seemingly poor first augmenting path $s\to a\to b\to t$, carrying $1$, does not cause failure in this example. It leaves residual network capacity $2$ along $s\to a\to t$ and $2$ along $s\to b\to t$. These two subsequent augmenting paths yield values $1$, $3$, and $5$, and produce exactly the flow above. Backward residual network edges become essential in the unit-capacity example under residual network, where this same first choice blocks every unused forward route.

Discrete assignment is another reason to study maximum flow. Put unit-capacity edges from $s$ to job vertices, from each job to eligible worker vertices, and from workers to $t$. An integral flow selects a matching in a graph: each job and worker participates at most once, and the strength of a flow counts assigned jobs. The integral max-flow theorem therefore turns maximum cardinality assignment into maximum flow. Minimizing assignment costs is the related assignment problem, modeled by minimum-cost flow.^[ref]

For finitely many Lebesgue measurable sets $A_i\subseteq [0,1]$ and nonnegative demands $b_i$, pairwise disjoint measurable subsets $B_i\subseteq A_i$ with $\lambda (B_i)=b_i$ exist exactly when $\lambda ({\bigcup }_{i\in I}{A}_i)\ge {\sum }_{i\in I}{b}_i$ for every index subset $I$. Necessity is additivity and monotonicity of Lebesgue measure. For sufficiency, partition the set union into membership cells $E_J$, send flow from a source through demand vertices $i$ to cells with $i\in J$, then to a sink. Source capacities are $b_i$, cell capacities are $\lambda (E_J)$, and intermediate capacities are $D={\sum }_i{b}_i$. Every cut of a flow network has capacity at least $D$ by the assumed inequalities. The max-flow min-cut theorem provides the allocations, and divisibility of Lebesgue measure turns each cell allocation into disjoint pieces. If $D=0$, all $B_i$ can simply be empty.

A minimum cut is a cut of a flow network of least cut capacity for the prescribed source $s$ and sink $t$. The max-flow min-cut theorem equates that least cut capacity with the greatest flow value.^[ref]

To certify a particular minimum cut, exhibit a feasible flow whose flow value equals its cut capacity. Every feasible flow is bounded above by every cut capacity, so this single equality proves both optimalities.^[ref]

In the running example, the four possible source sides $\{s\}$, $\{s,a\}$, $\{s,b\}$ and $\{s,a,b\}$ have cut capacities $5,5,6,5$, respectively. The feasible flow of flow value $5$ therefore certifies three different minimum cuts. A minimum cut need not be unique; the optimum cut capacity is the same for all of them. Merely saturating many edges does not give this certificate: flow conservation and the particular cut of a flow network must also be checked.

Consider a finite directed flow network with source $s$, sink $t$, and nonnegative finite flow network edge capacities $c_e$. A feasible flow assigns $0\le f_e\le c_e$ to each arc and satisfies flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Its value $|f|$ is net outflow from $s$, equivalently net inflow to $t$. A maximal flow here means a flow of greatest value, also called a maximum flow. A source–sink cut of a flow network is a partition $(S,S^c)$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$; its cut capacity is $c(S,S^c)={\sum }_{u\in S,v\notin S}{c}_{uv}$, summing directed arcs from $S$ to its complement.

The max-flow min-cut theorem statesFor any feasible flow and cut, summing flow conservation over vertices in $S$ cancels internal arcs and gives $|f|={\sum }_{S\to S^c}{f}_e-{\sum }_{S^c\to S}{f}_e\le c(S,S^c)$. This proves the upper bound by every cut.

For the reverse bound, a maximum exists: the feasible set is a nonempty closed subset of the bounded product ${\prod }_e[0,c_e]$, hence compact, and $|f|$ is continuous. Choose a maximizing flow $f$. Its residual network has a forward arc for unused capacity $c_e-f_e$ and a reverse arc for cancellable flow $f_e$, retaining original-arc identities if necessary. If a residual path joined $s$ to $t$, the minimum of its positive residual capacities would be positive. Increasing forward flows and cancelling reverse flows by this amount would preserve all constraints while increasing $|f|$, a contradiction.

Let $S$ consist of vertices reachable from $s$ through positive residual arcs. Then $t\notin S$. An original arc from $S$ to $S^c$ must be saturated, since otherwise its forward residual arc would make its endpoint reachable. An original arc from $S^c$ to $S$ must carry zero flow, since a positive reverse residual arc would again extend reachability. ThusThe upper bound and this equality prove the theorem and exhibit a residual reachability certificate for maximum flow. The argument works for real capacities and does not assume that an arbitrary augmenting-path algorithm terminates in finitely many steps.

Take a finite directed flow network with distinct source $s$, sink $t$ and finite nonnegative flow network edge capacities. A flow assigns $f_e$ to each edge with $0\le f_e\le c_e$ and obeys flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Its value is net outflow from the source, $|f|={\sum }_{s\to v}{f}_e-{\sum }_{v\to s}{f}_e$. A maximal flow here means a maximum flow: one with greatest value among feasible flows. A source-to-sink cut of a flow network is a partition $(S,S^c)$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$; its cut capacity is $c(S)={\sum }_{u\in S,v\notin S}{c}_{uv}$, counting directed edges leaving $S$.

The max-flow min-cut theorem statesSumming conservation over $S$ cancels internal edges and givesThis is the upper bound for every flow and every cut. To prove equality, a maximum exists: the feasible edge vectors form a nonempty closed bounded subset of a finite-dimensional real space, and flow value is continuous.

For a maximum $f$, construct its residual network. Each edge has a forward residual edge of capacity $c_e-f_e$ and a backward residual edge of capacity $f_e$; retain those of positive capacity. If a residual source-to-sink path existed, augment by the smallest residual capacity on that finite path. Increasing original forward flows and decreasing backward flows preserves all feasibility conditions and increases value, contradicting maximality. Thus no such augmenting path exists.

Let $S$ be the vertices reachable from $s$ in the residual network. Then $t\notin S$. Every original edge leaving $S$ is saturated, since otherwise its positive forward residual edge would make its endpoint reachable. Every original edge entering $S$ has zero flow, since otherwise its backward residual edge would give the same contradiction. HenceTogether with the universal upper bound this proves equality and identifies a minimum cut. This proof covers real capacities without assuming that an augmenting-path algorithm terminates after finitely many steps. Merely being impossible to increase all edge flows coordinatewise is not the optimization meaning of “maximal” used in the theorem.

A cut of a flow network of a directed flow network is a partition $(S,N\setminus S)$ with the source in $S$ and the sink outside it. Its cut capacity is $c(S)={\sum }_{i\in S,j\notin S}{c}_{ij}$. Summing flow conservation over all vertices of $S$ cancels every internal edge and gives the flow value as outgoing flow minus incoming flow across the cut. Incoming flow is nonnegative and outgoing flow is bounded by capacity, soThis is weak duality for the maximum-flow problem; no converse theorem is needed for the upper bound.

For this grid, use $S=\{(i_1,i_2):i_1<i_2\}$. It contains $(0,3)$ but not $(3,0)$. An adjacent edge can leave $S$ only by reaching the diagonal. Each of the three interior diagonal vertices has two incoming crossing edges and each endpoint has one, making eight edges. Every crossing edge has capacity one. Thus the diagonal cut in a nearest-neighbour lattice flow has capacity eight.

Here is a feasible flow of value eight. Send one unit on each of the following directed paths, and zero on every edge not used. In this list $ij$ abbreviates the vertex $(i,j)$:Every path conserves flow at its intermediate vertices. To check the capacities without hiding a feasibility assumption, group used edges by capacity: the capacity-one edges are traversed at most once; the capacity-two edges at most twice; the capacity-three edges at most three times; the capacity-four edges at most twice. Shared source edges $03\to 02$, $03\to 13$, $03\to 04$ carry $3,3,2$ units, and the corresponding three sink edges carry $3,3,2$. The diagram displays every positive edge flow beside its capacity. Thus all constraints hold and the matching cut proves

For a finite directed flow network with source $s$, sink $t$ and nonnegative finite flow network edge capacities $c_e$, the max-flow min-cut theorem statesHere feasible arc flows satisfy $0\le f_e\le c_e$ and flow conservation at every vertex except $s,t$. Their strength of a flow is the net outflow at $s$. A cut of a flow network has cut capacity equal to the sum of capacities on arcs directed from $S$ to $S^c$.

For any feasible flow and any such cut of a flow network, summing flow conservation over $S$ cancels internal arcs and givesThus every flow value is bounded by every cut capacity.

A maximum flow exists: the feasible arc-flow vectors form a nonempty closed subset of the finite-dimensional compact box ${\prod }_e[0,c_e]$, and flow value is continuous. Choose one, $f^{\ast }$. Its residual network has a forward arc of capacity $c_e-f_e^{\ast }$ and a reverse arc of capacity $f_e^{\ast }$ for each original arc. If a residual $s$–$t$ augmenting path existed, its smallest positive residual capacity would permit increasing forward flows and decreasing reverse flows along the path. This preserves all capacity bounds and internal flow conservation while strictly increasing $|f^{\ast }|$, a contradiction.

Let $S$ be the vertices reachable from $s$ through positive residual arcs. Then $t\notin S$. Every original arc leaving $S$ is saturated, since otherwise its endpoint would also be reachable. Every original arc entering $S$ carries zero flow, since a positive flow would create a residual reverse arc leaving $S$. ThereforeTogether with the universal upper bound, this proves both optimality claims and the theorem. This existence argument works for real capacities; it does not assume that arbitrary choices in the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm terminate. For integer capacities, positive augmentations are integral and increase the flow value by at least one, so the algorithm does terminate.

An cut of a flow network partitions a flow network into $S,S^c$, with source $A\in S$ and sink $B\notin S$. Its cut capacity is the sum of capacities of arcs directed from $S$ to $S^c$; a minimum cut minimizes this sum.

Use the suggested nodes. Give $A\to a_e$ capacity $1$, each $a_e\to b_v$ capacity $M=m+kn+1$, and each $b_v\to B$ capacity $k$. By the max-flow min-cut theorem, a flow of value $kn$ exists once every cut capacity is at least $kn$.

Consider a cut of a flow network containing no crossing arc of capacity $M$, and let $U$ be the intersections on the sink side. Every street incident to $U$ must also be on that side, or its arc to an endpoint in $U$ would cross the cut of a flow network. Hence at least $d(U)$ source-to-street arcs cross, as do the $n-|U|$ intersection-to-sink arcs from the other intersections. Therefore its cut capacity is at leastA cut of a flow network crossing a capacity-$M$ arc has still larger capacity. The cut of a flow network just before the sink has capacity $kn$, proving the maximum flow value is exactly $kn$.

The integral max-flow theorem supplies an integral maximum flow. Every intersection sends $k$ units to the sink; each street can supply at most one unit, assigned to one endpoint. Orient each assigned street away from its assigned endpoint. Orient unassigned streets arbitrarily. Then each vertex has at least $k$ outgoing streets. An Ford-Fulkerson algorithm with integer capacities constructs this flow and therefore the street directions. Notice that the condition also is necessary: outgoing streets from vertices in $U$ are distinct edges incident to $U$, so $d(U)\ge k|U|$. This is an outdegree orientation criterion.

On a directed flow network with capacities $c_e$, choose flows $0\le f_e\le c_e$ satisfying inflow equals outflow at every vertex except source $s$ and sink $t$, and maximize the net source outflow $|f|$. For a cut of a flow network $S$ containing $s$ but not $t$, its capacity is ${\sum }_{u\in S,v\notin S}{c}_{uv}$. The max-flow min-cut theorem statesEvery feasible flow is bounded above by every cut capacity; equality for a feasible flow and a cut proves optimality.

The Ford-Fulkerson algorithm starts with a feasible flow, for instance zero. A forward edge has residual capacity $c_{uv}-f_{uv}$ and its reverse edge has residual capacity $f_{uv}$. Find a source-to-sink augmenting path in this residual network, and increase the flow along it by the minimum residual capacity on the path, reducing original-edge flows when reverse edges are used. Repeat until no such path exists. The vertices reachable from the source then define a saturated minimum cut of a flow network. With integer capacities and zero initial flow, all residual capacities and augmentations are integers. Each augmentation increases $|f|$ by at least one, while $|f|$ is bounded by the finite sum of source capacities, so termination takes finitely many steps.

For the original roads, a feasible maximizing flow is given below; every table entry is flow/capacity in vehicles per minute.

All road capacities are respected, and direct summation verifies flow conservation at each roundabout. The original flow value is $90$. The cut separating $B$ from every other vertex consists of its two incoming roads and has capacity $40+50=90$. Therefore the original maximum is 90 vehicles per minute.

To impose a vertex capacity, split $R_2$ into $R_2^{-}$ and $R_2^{+}$. Send its incoming roads to $R_2^{-}$ and its outgoing roads from $R_2^{+}$, and add a directed internal edge $R_2^{-}\to R_2^{+}$ of capacity $20$. Every unit passing through the roundabout must traverse this internal edge. This gives the standard maximum flow with vertex capacities construction.

Starting from zero, apply the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm with the following augmenting paths in order. First use $A\to R_1\to R_3\to B$: its residual capacities are $60,10,40$, so augment by $10$. Next use $A\to R_4\to R_5\to B$: the residual capacities are $50,30,50$, so augment by $30$. Finally use $A\to R_1\to R_2^{-}\to R_2^{+}\to R_3\to B$: the residual capacities at this stage are $50,30,20,40,30$, so augment by $20$. No reverse edge is needed in this valid run. The resulting original-road flows are precisely the after-storm column above, and the internal edge carries $20$.

For termination and optimality, take the source-side set $\{A,R_1,R_4,R_2^{-}\}$. Its outgoing edges are $R_1\to R_3$, $R_4\to R_5$ and $R_2^{-}\to R_2^{+}$, of capacities $10,30,20$. They are all saturated, and no positive-flow original edge enters this set. Consequently no residual path leaves the set, and its cut capacity equals the constructed flow value. The new maximum is therefore

The Ford-Fulkerson algorithm starts with zero flow. For each original edge $i\to j$, the residual network has a forward edge with residual capacity $c_{ij}-f_{ij}$ and a reverse edge with residual capacity $f_{ij}$. Distinguish these labelled residual edges if the original graph has antiparallel edges. While there is a source-to-sink augmenting path with positive residual capacities, increase the flow by the minimum residual capacity along it, adding on forward edges and subtracting on reverse edges. This preserves capacity bounds and flow conservation and increases the strength of a flow by that positive bottleneck.

A cut of a flow network is a partition $(S,V\setminus S)$ with $s\in S$, $t\notin S$, of capacity $c(S)={\sum }_{i\in S,j\notin S}{c}_{ij}$. Summing flow conservation gives $|f|=f(S,V\setminus S)-f(V\setminus S,S)\le c(S)$. The max-flow min-cut theorem statesWhen no augmenting path remains, take $S$ to be the vertices reachable from $s$ in the residual network. Every original outgoing edge of this cut of a flow network is saturated and every incoming edge has zero flow; otherwise a positive residual edge would leave $S$. Thus $|f|=c(S)$, certifying optimality and the theorem. For general finite real capacities, one can also apply this argument to an existing maximum: it cannot admit an augmenting path.

With integer capacities, each augmentation increases the value by at least one, so the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm terminates. Rational capacities can be scaled to integers. Arbitrary path choices with irrational capacities need not terminate; the existence theorem does not justify claiming finite termination in that generality. The given network has integer capacities, so this caveat does not obstruct its computation.

Reading the arrows directly from the original PDF gives, in particular, $c\to a$ and $e\to d$. Starting from zero flow, use the following augmenting paths and bottlenecks, in order:

Each path is available in the current residual network. The resulting nonzero edge flows areThe flows on $c\to a$ and $e\to d$ are zero. Capacity constraints and flow conservation hold at each interior vertex; net source outflow is $6+8+5=19$.

Take $S=\{s,a,b,c\}$. Its outgoing edges are $a\to d$, $c\to d$, $b\to e$, $c\to e$, with total capacity $6+2+5+6=19$. Thus the matching flow and cut of a flow network certificates giveThese are also exactly the source-reachable vertices in the final residual network. The original drawing below labels each edge by flow/capacity; the highlighted edges realise the minimum cut of a flow network.

No: the increase need not equal $\epsilon$. For a simple counterexample, use two edge-disjoint paths $s\to a\to t$ and $s\to b\to t$, with all four capacities equal to one. Initially the maximum flow is $2$. After every capacity increases to $1+\epsilon$, send $1+\epsilon$ down each path; a source cut of a flow network bounds the total by the same value. HenceMore generally, by the max-flow min-cut theorem, if $m(S)$ is the number of directed edges leaving a cut of a flow network, uniform capacity perturbation of a flow network givesThe number of outgoing edges, and possible changes of the minimising cut of a flow network, determine the increase. If the question were interpreted as asking for an increase of at least $\epsilon$, this does hold when the graph has a directed $s$-to-$t$ path, because then every cut of a flow network has $m(S)\ge 1$. Without such a path a zero-edge cut of a flow network remains of capacity zero and the maximum can stay zero. Thus neither an exact increment nor an unconditional positive increment follows merely by adding the same amount to every edge capacity.

Write $D={\sum }_{i=1}^n{b}_i$ and let $\lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure. Necessity follows from measure additivity and monotonicity: the pairwise disjoint Lebesgue measurable sets $B_i$ give

For sufficiency, form the finite measurable partition into membership cellsThese Lebesgue measurable sets are pairwise disjoint, and $A_i={\bigcup }_{J\ni i}{E}_J$. Empty cells may be retained. Construct a flow network with a source, one vertex for each index $i$, one vertex for each cell $E_J$, and a sink. Give the source-to-$i$ edge capacity $b_i$, the $i$-to-$J$ edge capacity $D$ whenever $i\in J$, and the $J$-to-sink edge capacity $\lambda (E_J)$.

Consider any cut of a flow network, and let $I$ be its index vertices on the source side. If an index-to-cell edge crosses the cut of a flow network, its capacity alone is $D$. Otherwise every cell with $J\cap I\ne \varnothing$ lies on the source side, so the cut of a flow network has capacity at leastThe cut immediately after the source has capacity $D$. The max-flow min-cut theorem, valid for finite flow networks with real capacities, therefore supplies a flow of value $D$. Its cell allocations $f_{iJ}\ge 0$ satisfy

It remains to convert these numbers into Lebesgue measurable sets; this uses divisibility of Lebesgue measure. Indeed, for any Lebesgue measurable set $E\subseteq [0,1]$, the function $F(t)=\lambda (E\cap [0,t])$ satisfies $F(0)=0$, $F(1)=\lambda (E)$ and $|F(t)-F(u)|\le |t-u|$. Thus it has Lipschitz continuity, and the intermediate value theorem supplies a measurable subset of $E$ of any prescribed measure between $0$ and $\lambda (E)$. Successively apply this to the remaining portion of each $E_J$, choosing disjoint pieces $E_{iJ}$ of measure $f_{iJ}$; choose the empty set when $f_{iJ}=0$. ThenThis proves the measurable Hall theorem. The splitting step is essential: an arbitrary measure with an atom of a measure would not support the same conclusion. Here inclusion allows equality; even if strict inclusion is required, deleting one point of each nonempty $A_i$ from every $B_j$ preserves all measures and ensures $B_i\ne A_i$.

The max-flow min-cut theorem states that in a finite flow network, the maximum value of a feasible source-to-sink flow equals the minimum capacity of a source-to-sink cut.

First consider any feasible flow $f$ and any cut $(A,V\setminus A)$ with $S\in A$ and $T\notin A$. Summing flow conservation over the vertices in $A$ cancels all contributions from edges internal to $A$ and givesThus every flow value is at most every cut capacity.

A maximum flow exists because the feasible flows form a nonempty compact subset of a finite-dimensional Euclidean space and the flow value is continuous. Let $f$ be maximum and form its residual network. If there were an augmenting path from $S$ to $T$, increasing $f$ by the path's positive bottleneck capacity would contradict maximality. Let $A$ be the set of vertices reachable from $S$ in the residual network. Then $T\notin A$. Every original edge from $A$ to its complement is saturated, while every original edge entering $A$ carries zero flow; otherwise the corresponding forward or reverse residual edge would make its other endpoint reachable. ConsequentlyThe general upper bound is attained by this flow and cut, proving the theorem.

For a feasible flow $f$, each original directed edge $u\to v$ supplies a forward residual network edge of capacity $c_{uv}-f_{uv}$ and a backward one $v\to u$ of capacity $f_{uv}$; zero-capacity residual edges may be omitted. The forward edge permits an increase, while the backward edge permits cancellation of existing flow. In particular, backward residual capacity is the amount already sent, rather than unused original capacity. If both original orientations exist, keep their residual contributions separate, or add capacities for contributions with the same direction. An augmenting path uses these permitted changes while preserving flow conservation and the capacity constraints.

To see why cancellation matters, give all five directed edges $s\to a$, $s\to b$, $a\to b$, $a\to t$, $b\to t$ unit flow network edge capacities. Starting from zero flow, an augmenting path $s\to a\to b\to t$ carrying $1$ yieldsThe remaining unused original edges are $s\to b$ and $a\to t$, which do not form a source-to-sink graph path. However, the backward residual edge $b\to a$ has capacity $f_{ab}=1$. Consequently the residual network contains the augmenting path $s\to b\to a\to t$, with residual capacities $1,1,1$.

Augment by $1$: increase $f_{sb}$ and $f_{at}$ from $0$ to $1$, and decrease $f_{ab}$ from $1$ to $0$. The result isNow flow conservation is $1=0+1$ at $a$ and $1+0=1$ at $b$. The final flow sends one unit along each of $s\to a\to t$ and $s\to b\to t$. The cut of a flow network $S=\{s\}$ has cut capacity $1+1=2$, proving this is a maximum flow. Traversing $b\to a$ in the residual network revised the earlier routing decision; it did not send actual traffic along a nonexistent original edge.