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.
Every hereditary graph class is closed under taking arbitrary subgraphs
False Statement
Every hereditary graph class is closed under taking arbitrary, not necessarily induced, subgraphs.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hereditary class of complete graphs.
Complete graphs form a hereditary class (Complete graphs form the hereditary class with forbidden basis ).
contains as an ordinary subgraph but not as an induced subgraph ( contains as a subgraph but not as an induced subgraph).
Heredity requires closure under induced subgraphs, not arbitrary edge-deleted subgraphs (Hereditary graph classes).
Refutation
The graph belongs to .
Deleting one edge gives an ordinary subgraph , which is not complete and hence does not belong to .
Therefore the hereditary class is not closed under arbitrary subgraphs.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
9 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.
Sources
- Valerio Boncompagni, On hereditary graph classes defined by forbidding Truemper configurations (PhD thesis, 2018) (standard reference, not scraped)