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.
Counting lemma: regular dense pairs contain many part-respecting copies of every fixed graph
Statement
Let be a finite simple graph on labelled vertices , and let . There are constants , , and such that the following holds for every finite simple graph . Let be nonempty, not necessarily distinct, with . Whenever , require and require to be -regular in of density at least . Then at least maps with carry every edge of to an edge of . At least half this many such maps are injective, after increasing if necessary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , a host graph , and host sets satisfying the Statement.
If is -regular of density and satisfies , then fewer than vertices have , and separately fewer than have (In a regular pair, fewer than vertices have too small a degree into a large subset, and fewer than have too large a degree).
Restricting a regular pair to sufficiently large subsets preserves regularity, with a controlled new parameter and density loss (Slicing lemma: large subpairs remain regular and their density shifts by at most ).
A finite simple graph has finitely many vertices, no loops, and unordered edges between distinct vertices (A finite simple graph is a finite vertex set together with a set of two-element vertex subsets).
Proof
If there is exactly one map , it is injective and carries every edge of to an edge of vacuously, and , so and give both assertions; assume from here. Put . Choose with ; since and this also gives and . Set .
Embed the vertices in the order . After choosing images for , maintain for each the candidate set obtained by intersecting with the neighbourhoods of the already embedded neighbours of . The invariant is , where is the number of neighbours of among .
Suppose the invariant holds before embedding , and let be a neighbour of . The invariant and step 1.1 give , so meets the size threshold [L1] asks of a subset of inside the original -regular pair ; no reslicing of that pair is needed for this bound, and [L2] confirms that the restricted pairs carried along remain regular. Write for the density of , so . Applying [L1] to this one subset , fewer than vertices of have fewer than neighbours in , and because . This is a bound for the single subset , giving one exceptional set for each neighbour of .
The union of the at most exceptional sets of step 3.1 has size at most , so at least half of survives; note that the exceptional sets are measured against , not against . Every remaining choice preserves the invariant after replacing each future-neighbour candidate set by its neighbourhood. Vertex is therefore chosen from a set of size at least , and because each edge is counted once, at its later endpoint. Thus the greedy induction supplies at least edge-preserving maps.
A noninjective map identifies at least one pair and hence there are at most collision choices. Choose so that this is at most whenever all .
Removing these collision maps leaves at least injective part-respecting copies of .
Depends on
- In a regular pair, fewer than $\epsilon|X|$ vertices have too small a degree into a large subset, and fewer than $\epsilon|X|$ have too large a degree
- Slicing lemma: large subpairs remain regular and their density shifts by at most $\epsilon$
- A finite simple graph is a finite vertex set together with a set of two-element vertex subsets
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 13 results over 10 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Y. Zhao, Graph Theory and Additive Combinatorics, Theorem 2.6.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- D. Conlon and J. Fox, Graph removal lemmas, sec. 2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)