B.3(b,c), j*+1 ∈ P(Qr,y,ir). Hence, σ(Qr, j*+1) ≥ y = σ(Qr,ir). Again a contra-
diction. So, σ(Qr,j*+1) ≥ σ(Qr, ir).]
O2. For all i ∈ A^(Qr) with f^‰) ≤ f^(i), σ(Qr,i) ≥ σ(Qr,j^).
Suppose jr+ι ∈ Asr+ι(Qr). Note fs^(jr*+ι) ≤ fs^(jr+ι). From O2 (with i = jr+ι) and
O1, σ(Qr,jr+ι) ≥ σ(Qr,j^ ≥ σ(Qr,ir).
Suppose now jr+1 ∈ Asr+1 (Qr). Assume σ(Qr, jr+1) < σ(Qr, ir). Then,
jr+1 = ir. (11)
We consider two cases.
Case 1: σ(Qr, ir) ≤ σ(Q, ir).
Then, σ(Qr, jr+1) < min{σ(Qr, ir), σ(Q, ir)}. From Lemma B.3(a) it follows that σ(Q, jr+1)
= σ(Qr, jr+1). So,
σ(Q, jr+1) <σ(Q,ir). (12)
However, under TTC(Q), ir is in a cycle with sr+1 and jr+1 is in the last cycle of sr+1.
So, σ(Q, jr+1) ≥ σ(Q, ir), a contradiction to (12).
Case 2: σ(Q, ir) < σ(Qr, ir).
If σ(Qr, jr+1) < σ(Q, ir), then σ(Qr, jr+1) < min{σ(Qr, ir), σ(Q, ir)} which yields the
same contradiction as in Case 1. Therefore, σ(Q, ir) ≤ σ(Qr, jr+1).
From Observation B.1 and the assumption that σ(Qr, jr+1) < σ(Qr, ir) it follows that
for each l ≤ σ(Qr, jr+1), jr+1 ∈/ P(Qr, l, ir). From (11) and Lemma B.7 it follows that for
each l with σ(Q, ir) ≤ l ≤ σ(Qr, jr+1), F (Q, l, jr+1) = F (Qr, l, jr+1) (as directed paths).
So, by taking l = σ(Qr, jr+1), we obtain that jr+1’s cycle under TTC(Q) is the same as
under TTC(Qr). In particular, jr+1 ∈ Asr+1 (Qr), a contradiction.
Since both cases give a contradiction we conclude that σ(Qr,jr+1) ≥ σ(Qr,ir). □
Step 5 There is an X -cycle.
We can assume, without loss of generality, that among the students in {j1 , . . . , jp} student
j1 is (one of) the last one(s) to be assigned to a school under TTC(Q), i.e.,
σ(Q, j1) ≥ σ(Q,jr) for any r ∈ {1, . . . ,p}. (13)
Suppose fs2 (j1) < fs2 (j2). By definition of j2, school s2 points to student j2 in the
last, qs2 -th, cycle of s2 under TTC(Q), which o ccurs at step σ(Q, s2). Hence, j1 ∈
43