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.
In a basic bull-free graph, an odd hole with a complete outside vertex has tightly constrained neighbors
Statement
Let be a basic bull-free graph, let be an odd hole in with , let be complete to , and let be nonadjacent to . Then either:
- is complete to ; or
- and has at least three neighbors in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A basic bull-free graph , an odd hole with vertices in cyclic order and , a vertex complete to , and a vertex nonadjacent to .
A basic bull-free graph is a bull-free graph that is not composite (Basic and composite bull-free graphs).
A hole is an induced cycle (Holes, antiholes, and odd holes).
Proof
Because is basic, cannot be anticomplete to : otherwise the odd hole would have the complete outside vertex and the anticomplete outside vertex , making composite and contradicting [F1]. Assume neither outcome of the Statement holds. By cyclic symmetry choose adjacent to . Suppose that is adjacent to . Since is not a bull, is adjacent to at least one of ; after reversing and shifting the cyclic labels in the second case, we may assume that is adjacent to . If , the three distinct neighbors give outcome 2, contrary to our assumption. Thus , and outcome 1 failing means is not complete to . Since is not a bull, is adjacent to at least one of ; reflecting the cyclic labels through if necessary, we may assume that is adjacent to . Let be minimal with nonadjacent to . Minimality makes adjacent to , while is adjacent to . If , then is a bull, so . But then is a bull, a contradiction. Thus is not adjacent to ; applying the same argument to any putative consecutive pair shows that has no two consecutive neighbors on .
Since is adjacent to but to no consecutive pair on , the vertices with would induce a bull unless were adjacent to every such . Reflecting the cycle through gives the same conclusion for . In particular is adjacent to both and , a consecutive pair, contradicting step 1.1. Therefore our assumption that neither outcome holds was impossible.
One of the two stated outcomes must hold.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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 and Shmuel Safra, The Erdős-Hajnal conjecture for bull-free graphs, Lemma 4.1 (standard reference, not scraped)