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.
Hypergraph KST:
Statement
For fixed integers and ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and notation of the statement above.
An -uniform hypergraph has a finite vertex set and edges that are -element vertex sets; contains every transversal of its equal parts (-uniform hypergraphs and complete balanced -partite -graphs ).
For , the Kővári–Sós–Turán theorem gives (Kővári–Sós–Turán: exact bipartite and ordinary-graph upper bounds for excluding ).
For a finite incidence relation, the sum of its row-fibre sizes equals the sum of its column-fibre sizes (Double counting: for a relation between finite sets).
For a bipartite graph with parts of sizes containing no oriented with its vertices on the -side, the common-neighbour count is at most ; for nonnegative integer degrees of total with , smoothing gives the lower bound (The Kővári–Sós–Turán common-neighbour count and the discrete convexity lower bound for degree sums).
means an eventual constant upper bound, means , and subscripts permit the constants and thresholds to depend on those parameters (Edge density and the asymptotic notations , , , and for extremal functions).
Proof
For , the ordinary KST theorem gives exponent , which is the displayed exponent. Assume the result for uniformity . Since the assertion is asymptotic, take , and let an -graph on vertices have edges and contain no . For each -set , let be the number of vertices with an edge. Then .
Count pairs with and every extending to an edge. The count is . For fixed , its common link is an -graph containing no , since such a copy together with would form the forbidden -partite -graph. By induction, .
If the average is below , then , already stronger than required. Otherwise degree smoothing gives . Comparing with step 2.1 and solving for gives , because .
Induction proves the first asymptotic bound for every . Since , division by tends to , proving the clause.
Depends on
- $r$-uniform hypergraphs and complete balanced $r$-partite $r$-graphs $K^{(r)}_{s,\ldots,s}$
- Edge density and the asymptotic notations $O$, $o$, $\Omega$, and $\Theta$ for extremal functions
- Kővári–Sós–Turán: exact bipartite and ordinary-graph upper bounds for excluding $K_{s,t}$
- The Kővári–Sós–Turán common-neighbour count and the discrete convexity lower bound for degree sums
- Double counting: $\sum_{x \in X}\lvert R_x\rvert = \lvert R\rvert = \sum_{y \in Y}\lvert R^y\rvert$ for a relation between finite sets
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 43 results over 16 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
- Yufei Zhao, Graph Theory and Additive Combinatorics (standard reference, not scraped)