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.
The greedy colouring bound for every nonnull finite graph
Statement
Let be a nonnull finite simple graph. Then
More precisely, after the vertices are put in any finite order, assigning to each vertex the least colour not already used by an earlier neighbour produces a proper colouring with colours in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A nonnull finite simple graph , , and a bijective enumeration from to .
A proper -colouring assigns different elements of to adjacent vertices, and is the least admissible (Proper vertex colourings and chromatic number).
Every vertex has at most neighbours (Adjacency, incidence, open and closed neighbourhoods, vertex degree, minimum degree and maximum degree).
If are natural numbers, there is no injection from into (The pigeonhole principle on , claim 2).
Every nonempty subset of the natural numbers has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
A subset of the natural numbers containing and closed under successor is all of the natural numbers; and exactly one of , , holds (The principle of mathematical induction, Trichotomy of the order on ).
Proof
For each , at most earlier neighbours of have already been considered. If all colours occurred among them, choosing for each colour its least earlier-neighbour index would inject the colours into a set of at most indices, contradicting [L3]. Thus at least one colour is absent.
Let say that either , or the first vertices have a unique colouring which uses the least available colour at every vertex. The empty colouring verifies .
Assume . If or , then , so . If , step 1.1 gives a nonempty set of available colours for , and [L4] gives its unique least element. Appending that colour to the unique preceding colouring produces the unique greedy colouring of the first vertices; hence . These cases are exhaustive by [L5].
Induction using steps 1.2 and 2.1 gives . Since is false, this gives a greedy colouring of all vertices.
If with , then is an earlier neighbour of , so the rule in step 3.1 gives . Thus is a proper -colouring.
Since such a colouring exists, the minimality clause in [L1] gives .
Depends on
- Proper vertex colourings and chromatic number
- Adjacency, incidence, open and closed neighbourhoods, vertex degree, minimum degree and maximum degree
- The cardinality $\lvert A\rvert$ of a finite set
- The pigeonhole principle on $\mathbb{N}$
- The well-ordering principle
- The principle of mathematical induction
- Trichotomy of the order on $\mathbb{N}$
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 39 results over 20 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Springer, Graph Theory Fundamentals, Theorem 1.17 (standard reference, not scraped)