Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04
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 large cy-restricted subgraph in the three-outcome theorem forces a smaller-scale restricted subgraph

Statement

Let F be a generalized nice, leaf-reducible, wonderful finite family. Assume constants c∈(0,12), c1,c2>0, and c3≥c4≥4 satisfy the conclusion of cy-restricted generalized niceness yields three outcomes for F. Let x∈(0,c2), and let G be an F‾-free graph such that:

  1. G has no clique and no stable set of size at least (xc1+3c3∣G∣)c2;
  2. for every integer k≥2, G has no complete or anticomplete (k,∣G∣/kc1+3c3)-blockade.

Then for every y with cy∈[x,c2] and every cy-restricted induced subgraph F of G with

∣F∣≥(cy)4c3/c4∣G∣,

there is a (cy)c4/2-restricted induced subgraph of F with at least (cy)c3∣F∣ vertices.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The family F, the constants c,c1,c2,c3,c4, the parameter x, the F‾-free graph G, the two global failure hypotheses, a parameter y with cy∈[x,c2], and a cy-restricted induced subgraph F with ∣F∣≥(cy)4c3/c4∣G∣.

[L1]

The three-outcome theorem applies to every cy-restricted F‾-free graph with the displayed constants (cy-restricted generalized niceness yields three outcomes).

[L2]

Every induced subgraph of an F‾-free graph is again F‾-free (H-free and F-free graphs under the induced-subgraph convention).

Proof

technique · apply the three-outcome theorem to $F$ and rule out its first two outcomes by the assumed global failures in $G$
1.1givenalgebra

Because cy∈[x,c2] and c<1, we have y≥x and y≤c. Also cy≥y2 because y≤c. Therefore ∣F∣≥(cy)4c3/c4∣G∣≥y8c3/c4∣G∣.

2.1L1L2step 1.1givenalgebra

Since F is an induced subgraph of the F‾-free graph G, [L2] implies that F is also F‾-free. Apply [L1] to F. If it gives a clique or stable set in F of size at least (yc1∣F∣)c2, then by step 1.1 one has (yc1∣F∣)c2≥(yc1+8c3/c4∣G∣)c2≥(xc1+3c3∣G∣)c2, because 8c3/c4≤2c3≤3c3 and y≥x. This contradicts global hypothesis 1.

2.2L1step 1.1givenalgebra

If [L1] gives a complete or anticomplete (k,∣F∣/kc3)-blockade in F with k≥y−1, then k≥2. Using step 1.1 and k≥y−1, one has ∣F∣/kc3≥y8c3/c4∣G∣/kc3≥∣G∣/kc3+8c3/c4≥∣G∣/kc1+3c3, since c3+8c3/c4≤c1+3c3. This contradicts global hypothesis 2.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2L1algebra

Therefore only the third outcome of [L1] can occur. So F has a yc4-restricted induced subgraph S with ∣S∣≥yc3∣F∣. Because cy≥y2, one has yc4=(y2)c4/2≤(cy)c4/2, so S is also (cy)c4/2-restricted. Since cy≤y, we also have yc3≥(cy)c3, hence ∣S∣≥yc3∣F∣≥(cy)c3∣F∣. This is exactly the claimed smaller-scale restricted induced subgraph.

4.1step 3.1∎

The claimed induced subgraph exists.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

7 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