How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
From Generalized Niceness to Erdős-Hajnal — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Blockades, Combs and Pattern Graphs
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability and the Probabilistic Method
- Finite Probability Spaces and Random Variables
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- From Generalized Niceness to Erdős-Hajnal
- Generalized Niceness and Reduction Outcomes
- Graph Colouring
- Graphs, Walks and Connectivity
- Inclusion–Exclusion, the Pigeonhole Principle and Double Counting
- Induced Subgraphs and Hereditary Graph Classes
- Iterative Restriction and Comb-Extraction Lemmas
- Leaf Reducibility and Wonderful Families
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rödl, Virality and Erdős–Hajnal Equivalence
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Regular Pairs and Induced Counting
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sparse Restricted Subgraphs and the Rödl–Nikiforov Theorems
- Suprema and Infima
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Erdős–Hajnal Property and Homogeneous Sets
- The Exponential Function
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topology of ℝ
- Trees, Forests and Spanning Trees
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
These examples isolate the two concrete mechanisms used on the A page: the parameter choices in the final Erdős-Hajnal deduction, and the two ways a large restricted or blocked configuration immediately produces a polynomial clique or stable set.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The Lemma 3.5 parameter choice at the next power of two above the source threshold
Example
Consider the special case in which the constant supplied by the source lemma happens to be . Then and the threshold is . Let , and define
Then the size thresholds in the source Erdős-Hajnal reduction are
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The numerical choices displayed in the Example.
Conditionally on the displayed value , one has , and is the first power of two strictly above the corresponding source threshold. The example does not assert that the existential constant can be freely chosen.
Verification
Since , one has Also because . Thus .
The first threshold is while Since , one gets .
The second threshold is Again , so .
Therefore, in the special case , this concrete instance satisfies all of the numerical inequalities used in the source Erdős-Hajnal reduction at the next power-of-two graph order above the threshold.
A complete four-blockade gives a four-vertex clique
Example
Let be a complete four-blockade in a graph , and choose vertices for .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The complete blockade and the chosen vertices .
Distinct blocks of a complete blockade are pairwise complete (Complete, anticomplete, pure, weakly sparse, and -sparse blockades).
Verification
Because each block of a blockade is nonempty, the four choices are legitimate.
If , then is complete to by [L1], so the chosen vertices and are adjacent.
Therefore every pair among is adjacent, so these four vertices form a clique.
A large epsilon-restricted induced subgraph gives a polynomial clique or stable set
Example
Let and let be an -restricted induced subgraph on vertices. Take an ambient graph order , so that .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The data in the Example.
An -restricted set is -sparse in one of and , and complementation swaps cliques with stable sets (-sparse, -dense and -restricted vertex sets, A set is -sparse in exactly when it is -dense in , so -restrictedness is complement-invariant, Complementation swaps cliques with stable sets, so ).
For a nonempty -sparse graph ,
(The greedy colouring bound for every nonnull finite graph, The bounds and ).
Verification
By [L1], after taking complements if necessary we may assume that is -sparse.
Applying [L2] to the -vertex graph gives Since is an integer, .
Because , one has . Therefore the stable set from step 2.1 already has the same size as the final polynomial bound used in the A-page reduction. If the sparse side had arisen in the complement instead, [L1] would turn the same calculation into a clique of size in the original graph.