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 quotient block of connected or anticonnected blocks is again connected or anticonnected
Statement
Let be a blockade and let be a block of the quotient blockade .
- If every block of contained in induces a connected subgraph, then is connected.
- If every block of contained in induces an anticonnected subgraph, then is anticonnected.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A blockade in a graph , its quotient blockade , and a quotient block .
The block is the union of one -equivalence class. Therefore, after fixing any member block , every other member block can be joined to by a finite mixed chain of original blocks contained in (The quotient blockade obtained from mixed-block reachability, The mixed-block reachability relation on a blockade).
A mixed pair has at least one cross-edge and at least one cross-nonedge (Edges between disjoint vertex sets; complete, anticomplete, pure and mixed pairs).
Connectedness is connectivity in , while anticonnectedness is connectivity in (Connected graphs and connected components defined by the existence of vertex paths, Anticonnected graphs and anticonnected components).
For every vertex set , one has ( for every vertex set ).
Proof
Assume first that every original block contained in is connected. Fix one such block . Let be any other member block. By [L1], choose a mixed chain inside . We prove by induction on that is connected. The case is immediate because is connected. If , then the induction hypothesis gives connectedness of , the block is connected by assumption, and [L2] gives a cross-edge between and because that pair is mixed. Hence the union up to is connected. Since was arbitrary, every member block of lies in the same connected component of , and therefore is connected.
Now assume every original block contained in is anticonnected. By [L3] and [L4], each member block induces a connected subgraph of . If two member blocks are consecutive on a mixed chain in , then [L2] gives a cross-nonedge between them in , hence a cross-edge in . Repeating the argument of step 1.1 inside shows that is connected. By [L3], this means that is anticonnected.
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove the connected and anticonnected conclusions.
Depends on
- The quotient blockade obtained from mixed-block reachability
- The mixed-block reachability relation on a blockade
- Connected graphs and connected components defined by the existence of vertex paths
- Anticonnected graphs and anticonnected components
- Edges between disjoint vertex sets; complete, anticomplete, pure and mixed pairs
- $\overline{G[W]}=\overline G[W]$ for every vertex set $W$
- Graph isomorphisms, automorphisms and graph complements
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
16 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 6.1(1) (standard reference, not scraped)