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.
The class of connected graphs is not hereditary
Statement refuted
The class of connected finite graphs is hereditary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The path .
The induced subgraph on has no edge (Subgraphs, induced subgraphs and spanning subgraphs).
A hereditary class must contain every induced subgraph of each member (Hereditary graph classes).
Counterexample
The graph belongs to the class of connected graphs.
Its induced subgraph on the endpoints is , which is disconnected.
Hence this class is not closed under induced subgraphs and is not hereditary.
Remarks
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 14 results over 7 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Reinhard Diestel, Graph Theory, Preview Chapter 1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Valerio Boncompagni, On hereditary graph classes defined by forbidding Truemper configurations (PhD thesis, 2018) (standard reference, not scraped)