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 sparse graph without a large sparse pair has a large nearly covered sparse pair
Statement
Let with , and let be a -sparse graph with . Suppose that is not -sparse, and that there do not exist disjoint sets such that
and is -sparse to . Then there exist a vertex and disjoint sets such that:
- and ;
- and ;
- is -sparse to ; and
- every vertex of has at least neighbours in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Parameters and a graph satisfying the displayed hypotheses.
A graph is -sparse when every vertex has degree at most (-sparse, -dense and -restricted vertex sets, Adjacency, incidence, open and closed neighbourhoods, vertex degree, minimum degree and maximum degree).
The assertion that is -sparse to means that every vertex of has at most neighbours in (Sparsity of one vertex set to another, and weak sparsity of a pair).
Proof
Because is not -sparse, some vertex has degree at least . Let . Then .
Let be the set of vertices in with at least neighbours in . Averaging over the edges between and , some vertex of has at least neighbours in . Since every vertex has degree at most by [L1], we obtain , so .
Define . Since is -sparse, [L1] gives , and because we have . Therefore . Also, every vertex of has fewer than neighbours in by definition of .
Let be the set of vertices with at most neighbours in , and put . The number of edges between and is at most , so at most vertices of have more than neighbours in . Hence at least vertices of have at most neighbours in .
If , then step 4.1 gives a set with such that every vertex of has at most neighbours in . By [L2], the pair is then a forbidden large sparse pair, contradicting the hypothesis. Therefore .
Since by step 1.1 and by step 5.1, we have . By definition of , every vertex of has more than neighbours in . Also step 3.1 gives at most neighbours in for each vertex of , while step 5.1 implies ; hence , so every vertex of has at most neighbours in . Therefore is -sparse to .
Step 3.1 gives , step 1.1 gives , and steps 3.1 and 6.1 give the size, sparsity, and neighbourhood clauses. These are exactly the four clauses of the statement.
Depends on
Used by
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
- Tung Nguyen, Alex Scott, and Paul Seymour, Induced subgraph density. VII. The five-vertex path, Claim 5.2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Shenwei Huang, Yiao Ju, and Yidong Zhou, Erdős-Hajnal beyond the five-vertex path, Lemma 2.10 context (standard reference, not scraped)