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 bull-free graph is 2-narrow
Statement
Every bull-free finite graph is two-narrow.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A bull-free finite graph .
Every basic bull-free graph is two-narrow (Every basic bull-free graph is 2-narrow).
Every composite bull-free graph has a nontrivial module (Every composite bull-free graph has a nontrivial module).
Graphs defined by forbidden induced subgraphs form hereditary classes (Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary, -free and -free graphs under the induced-subgraph convention).
Substitution preserves -narrowness, hence in particular two-narrowness (Substituting two -narrow graphs yields another -narrow graph).
A module is a vertex set whose outside vertices are each complete or anticomplete to it (Modules of a graph, and the trivial modules).
The substitution replaces the vertex by the graph and gives every vertex of exactly the outside adjacencies of (Substituting one graph for a vertex of another).
Proof
We argue by induction on . If is basic, then [L2] proves the claim. So assume that is not basic. Because “basic” means “bull-free and not composite”, the bull-free graph is then composite, and [L3] gives a nontrivial module . Choose , let , and let . Since is nontrivial and proper, both and have fewer vertices than . By [L4], both are bull-free because they are induced subgraphs of .
Because is a module, every vertex outside is complete or anticomplete to . Therefore [F2] shows that is exactly the substitution . By the inductive hypothesis, both and are two-narrow, so [L5] makes two-narrow as well.
Either was basic, when step 1.1 reduced directly to [L2], or it was composite, when step 2.1 proved it two-narrow. Hence every bull-free finite graph is two-narrow.
Depends on
- Every prime bull-free graph is basic
- $H$-free and $\mathcal F$-free graphs under the induced-subgraph convention
- Every class defined by forbidden induced subgraphs is hereditary
- The quotient by a modular partition is isomorphic to the subgraph induced by any set meeting each part exactly once
- A graph is bull-free if and only if its complement is bull-free
- Substituting two $\alpha$-narrow graphs yields another $\alpha$-narrow graph
- Every basic bull-free graph is 2-narrow
- Every composite bull-free graph has a nontrivial module
- A graph with at least two vertices is prime exactly when it is not obtained by substituting one graph on at least two vertices for a vertex of another graph on at least two vertices
- Modules of a graph, and the trivial modules
- Substituting one graph for a vertex of another
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
36 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, The Erdős-Hajnal Conjecture: A Survey, Theorem 2.4 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Maria Chudnovsky and Shmuel Safra, The Erdős-Hajnal conjecture for bull-free graphs, Theorem 1.3 (standard reference, not scraped)