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 bipartite graph with bounded A-degree has a large comb or a small B-side
Statement
Let be a finite graph with a bipartition such that every vertex of has a neighbour in . Let and let . Suppose every vertex of has at most neighbours in . Then at least one of the following holds:
- for some integer , there is a -comb in ;
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A bipartite graph , parameters and , every vertex of has a neighbour in , and every vertex of has at most neighbours in .
Under the layer hypotheses of the previous lemma, either a -comb already appears or the current layer has size at most (A bipartite layer is small unless a large comb already appears).
If , then (For , , and for the series diverges).
Proof
Define pairwise disjoint sets inductively. Set , and after defining let . Choose distinct vertices with maximal such that for each there are at least vertices of adjacent to and to none of . Let be the set of vertices of adjacent to one of . By maximality of , every vertex of has at most neighbours in . Inducting on shows that every vertex of has at most neighbours in .
Every vertex of belongs to some layer . Indeed, if some survived in every , choose a neighbour of . Then has at least one neighbour in each , contradicting step 1.1 for all large because eventually. Thus .
Fix . The data and the chosen vertices satisfy the hypotheses of [L1]. Therefore either [L1] already yields a -comb in , or . So if the first alternative never occurs, the displayed bound holds for every .
Put . Since , we have , and . Hence [L2] gives . Using the disjoint union from step 2.1 and the layer bound from step 2.2, we obtain .
Therefore either the comb alternative occurs at some stage, or the displayed bound on holds. This is exactly the Statement.
Depends on
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
- Maria Chudnovsky, Alex Scott, Paul Seymour, and Sophie Spirkl, Erdős-Hajnal for graphs with no 5-hole, Theorem 2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)