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 leaf/co-leaf corollary recovers the case from the case
Example
Graphs with no induced and no induced have the Erdős-Hajnal property, and this follows from the case via the leaf/co-leaf corollary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The family .
If deleting a leaf from one member of a finite forbidden family and a co-leaf from another member produces two smaller families with the Erdős-Hajnal property, then the original family has the Erdős-Hajnal property (Deleting a leaf and a co-leaf preserves the Erdős-Hajnal property of a finite forbidden family).
The Erdős-Hajnal property passes from a hereditary class to each hereditary subclass (The Erdős–Hajnal property and each of its constants pass to hereditary subclasses).
For every forest , graphs with no induced and no induced have the Erdős-Hajnal property (For every forest , graphs excluding and have the Erdős-Hajnal property).
A co-leaf of a graph is a vertex that is a leaf of the complement, equivalently a vertex of degree (Co-leaves of a finite graph).
The complement contains exactly the nonedges of the original graph (Graph isomorphisms, automorphisms and graph complements).
Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary (Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary).
Verification
The graph has leaf . By [L5], the complement has edges , , , , , and , so vertex has degree . By [L4], vertex is therefore a co-leaf of . Delete that leaf of and that co-leaf of . The resulting smaller families are From the path edges , , and , [L5] gives complement edges , , and , which form the path ---. Thus .
The path is a forest, and step 1.1 shows that . Therefore [L3] applied with gives the Erdős-Hajnal property for the hereditary class of -free graphs. By [L6], the classes defined by forbidding and are hereditary. Each is a subclass of the -free class, using step 1.1 for the second family. Hence [L2] gives the Erdős-Hajnal property for both and .
Applying [L1] to the family and the two smaller families from steps 1.1 and 2.1 yields the Erdős-Hajnal property for graphs with no induced and no induced .
Depends on
- Deleting a leaf and a co-leaf preserves the Erdős-Hajnal property of a finite forbidden family
- For every forest $H$, graphs excluding $H$ and $\overline{H}$ have the Erdős-Hajnal property
- The Erdős–Hajnal property and each of its constants pass to hereditary subclasses
- Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary
- Empty and complete graphs, complete bipartite graphs, and the convention that $P_n$ and $C_n$ have $n$ vertices
- Co-leaves of a finite graph
- Graph isomorphisms, automorphisms and graph complements
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
22 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.