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.
A bipartite layer is small unless a large comb already appears
Statement
Let be a finite graph with a bipartition , let , let , and let be an integer. Suppose that and distinct vertices satisfy:
- every vertex of has at most neighbours in ; and
- for each , at least vertices of are adjacent to and to none of .
Let be the set of vertices adjacent to at least one of . Then at least one of the following holds:
- for some integer , there is a -comb in whose teeth lie in and whose blocks lie in ;
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A bipartite graph , parameters and , an integer , a set , distinct vertices , and the two hypotheses in the Statement.
A -comb in consists of distinct teeth in and pairwise disjoint blocks in , each tooth complete to its own block and anticomplete to all other blocks (Combs in a graph).
Proof
For each , let be the set of vertices in adjacent to and to none of . By the second hypothesis, , and the sets are pairwise disjoint. Let be the set of vertices in adjacent to . Since every vertex of has at most neighbours in , we have .
Declare the vertices good backwards as follows: is good when at most vertices of are adjacent to a good vertex among . Let be the set of good indices, and let . For every bad index , at least vertices of lie in . Since the are disjoint and each has size at most , it follows that , so .
If , then for each let . We have . If are both in , then is disjoint from and every vertex of avoids , so no vertex of is adjacent to ; similarly no vertex of is adjacent to . Therefore is a -comb in by [L1].
If and , then step 3.1 already gives the first alternative. Hence we may assume either or . In the second case, . When , step 2.1 gives , so then . In either remaining case, .
Since every has at most neighbours in , the set of all vertices of adjacent to one of the satisfies . This is the second alternative.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
3 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
- Maria Chudnovsky, Alex Scott, Paul Seymour, and Sophie Spirkl, Erdős-Hajnal for graphs with no 5-hole, proof of Theorem 2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)