Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28
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.

For an (n,d,λ)-graph with λ<d, every nontrivial cut has many crossing edges

Statement

Let G be an (n,d,λ)-graph with adjacency matrix A. For every nonempty proper subset S⊂V(G), writing e(S,V(G)∖S) for the number of edges crossing the cut, one has

e(S,V(G)∖S)≥(d−λ)∣S∣(n−∣S∣)n.

In particular, if λ<d, then G is connected.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An (n,d,λ)-graph G and a nonempty proper subset S⊂V(G).

[F1]

In an (n,d,λ)-graph, the graph is d-regular and its second-largest adjacency eigenvalue is at most λ (An (n,d,λ)-graph and an expander).

[L1]

Courant-Fischer characterises the second-largest eigenvalue as a max-min Rayleigh quotient, so every nonzero vector orthogonal to the all-ones eigenvector has Rayleigh quotient at most λ2 (Courant-Fischer min-max principle for self-adjoint endomorphisms on finite-dimensional real inner product spaces, The Rayleigh quotient of a nonzero vector for a self-adjoint endomorphism).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1algebra

Let 1S be the indicator vector of S, and put x:=1S−∣S∣n1. Then x≠0 because S is nonempty and proper, and x is orthogonal to 1. Since G is d-regular by [F1], the vector 1 is an adjacency eigenvector with eigenvalue d, so [L1] gives xTAx≤λ xTx.

2.1step 1.1F1algebra

A direct computation gives xTx=∣S∣(n−∣S∣)n and xTAx=d∣S∣(n−∣S∣)n−e(S,V(G)∖S), because 1STA1S counts twice the edges internal to S, while 1STA1=d∣S∣. Substituting these expressions into step 1.1 yields d∣S∣(n−∣S∣)n−e(S,V(G)∖S)≤λ∣S∣(n−∣S∣)n, which rearranges to the claimed cut bound.

3.1step 2.1L2

If λ<d and G were disconnected, [L2] would provide a connected component C with ∅≠C≠V(G) and e(C,V(G)∖C)=0. But step 2.1 would then force 0≥(d−λ)∣C∣(n−∣C∣)n>0, a contradiction. So G is connected.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Step 2.1 gives the edge-expansion inequality, and step 3.1 gives the connectedness consequence.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

15 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