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.
Every induced subgraph of an -free graph is -free
Statement
If is -free and is an induced subgraph of , then is -free.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An -free graph and an induced embedding .
-free means that no has an induced embedding into (-free and -free graphs under the induced-subgraph convention).
Induced embeddings compose (Induced embeddings compose, and the induced-subgraph relation is transitive up to isomorphism).
Proof
Suppose is not -free. Then some has an induced embedding .
The composite is an induced embedding.
This contradicts that is -free. Hence is -free.
Depends on
Used by
- For every λ>0 a bounded number of disjoint ε-restricted sets covers all but λ|V(G)| vertices of an H-free graph Corollary
- Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary Lemma
- Every H-free graph partitions into boundedly many vertex sets of self-density at most ε or at least 1-ε Theorem
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
- Valerio Boncompagni, On hereditary graph classes defined by forbidding Truemper configurations (PhD thesis, 2018) (standard reference, not scraped)