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.
Property (*) and leaf reducibility yield five comb outcomes in a restricted graph
Statement
Suppose that has property and that is leaf-reducible. Then there exist constants and such that for every and every -restricted -free graph , at least one of the following holds:
- there are disjoint sets with and is -sparse or complete to ;
- has a -restricted induced subgraph with at least vertices;
- has a clique or stable set of size at least ;
- has a complete or anticomplete -blockade for some real ;
- has a pure -blockade for some real .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite family with property and leaf-reducible, parameters , and a -restricted -free graph .
Because has property , there exist constants such that every special-vertex -comb with in an -free graph yields either a clique or stable set of size , or a complete or anticomplete -blockade with , or a pure -blockade (Property (*) for a finite graph family).
Since is leaf-reducible, there exist constants and such that every -sparse -free graph has either a large anticomplete pair or a -restricted induced subgraph of size at least (Leaf-reducible families yield a large anticomplete pair or a deeper restricted induced subgraph).
If is -sparse and , then either there are disjoint sets with , , and -sparse to , or is -sparse, or contains a special-vertex comb with parameters and width (A sparse graph either sparsifies further or yields a comb or a large sparse pair).
Restrictedness is preserved by complementation (-sparse, -dense and -restricted vertex sets, A set is -sparse in exactly when it is -dense in , so -restrictedness is complement-invariant).
Proof
Let be the constants from [L1]. Let and be the constants from [L2], and set
[assume-case dense-side] Suppose first that is -sparse. Because is -free, the complement graph is -free. Applying [L2] to with the parameter and , we obtain either:
- disjoint sets with , , and complete to in ; or
- a -restricted induced subgraph of with at least vertices.
In the first branch, and , so outcome 1 holds. In the second branch, [L4] transfers restrictedness back to , and because for , outcome 2 holds. [step 1.1, L2, L4, given, algebra]
[assume-case sparse-side] We may therefore assume that itself is -sparse. If , then , so any vertex of already gives outcome 3. Hence we may further assume that .
Apply [L3] to the sparse graph . If its first branch holds, then outcome 1 holds immediately. If its second branch holds, then outcome 2 holds immediately. So only the comb branch remains.
In that comb branch, [L3] gives an integer , a width , an -comb , and a vertex complete to and anticomplete to the teeth. Since and , one has and hence . Also , so because and . Using from step 2.1 and again, this also gives .
Apply [L1] to this special-vertex comb. If it yields a clique or stable set of size at least , then step 4.1 gives , so outcome 3 holds.
If [L1] yields a complete or anticomplete -blockade with , then and also . So outcome 4 holds.
If [L1] yields a pure -blockade, set Because , one has and also , so the same blockade has length at least . Since and , because , and therefore . Finally, Hence outcome 5 holds.
Steps 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 exhaust all cases, so one of the five stated outcomes always holds.
Depends on
- Property (*) for a finite graph family
- $c$-sparse, $c$-dense and $c$-restricted vertex sets
- A set is $c$-sparse in $G$ exactly when it is $c$-dense in $\overline G$, so $c$-restrictedness is complement-invariant
- A sparse graph either sparsifies further or yields a comb or a large sparse pair
- Leaf-reducible families yield a large anticomplete pair or a deeper restricted induced subgraph
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
24 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
- Shenwei Huang, Yiao Ju, and Yidong Zhou, Erdős-Hajnal beyond the five-vertex path, Lemma 4.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Tung Nguyen, Alex Scott, and Paul Seymour, Induced subgraph density. VII. The five-vertex path, Lemma 7.1 (standard reference, not scraped)