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.
Edge isoperimetric constant convention
PDF p. 20: Remark 3.5, following Lemma 3.4
Definition
Let be a finite undirected graph with at most one edge between any pair of vertices, possible self-loops, and . For , write and let count edges between and , each once. The edge isoperimetric constant, or Cheeger constant, in the unnormalized cut convention is
Thus the minimum ranges over all nonempty vertex subsets of size at most half of . For this convention leaves undefined, since there is no admissible subset.
Definition references
Facts & Assumptions
For subsets of the vertex set, the ordered adjacency count is well defined; when and are disjoint it counts each edge between them once. The complement consists of the vertices outside (Oriented edge count between sets).
A finite set has a well-defined natural-number cardinality and a bijection with ; its power set is finite, and every subset of a finite set is finite (The cardinality | A| of a finite set, lvertP(A)| = 2^| A| for finite A, A subset of a finite set is finite, with | B| ≤ | A|, and equality holds if and only if B = A).
For every integer and real numbers , the set has a minimum (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum).
For , a minimum is an element with for every . Such an element is unique when it exists; the empty set has no minimum (Maximum and minimum of a set).
Justification
Given: A graph as in the definition, with .
Goal: Show that the displayed minimum is a well-defined real number.
1.1 The admissible subsets form a subset of the finite power set of , so they are finite by [F2]. Since , contains a vertex and the singleton has cardinality ; hence the admissible family is nonempty. For each admissible , its positive cardinality makes the quotient a well-defined real number by [F1] and [F2]. [given, F1, F2, algebra]
2.1 Let be the admissible family from step 1.1 and put . By [F2], a bijection from onto lists its members as . Set ; these are real numbers by step 1.1. The quotient values are exactly , so the finite-list assertion [F3] gives an attained minimum . Every admissible cut is some , hence is at most every cut ratio and equals one such ratio. It is unique: two such minimum values are each at most the other, and therefore equal. This is the value assigned to , independent of the chosen enumeration. If , every nonempty subset is and has size , so the indexing family is empty and the displayed minimum supplies no value. [F2, F3, F4, step 1.1, choose, construct, algebra] ∎
Source notes
Remark 3.5 of the article names the isometric or Cheeger constant and states a lower bound. It does not display its definition; the unnormalized cut convention above is consistent with the cut estimate in the preceding Lemma 3.4.
Depends on
- Adjacency, degrees, graph Laplacian, and spectral notation
- Oriented edge count between sets
- The cardinality | A| of a finite set
- lvertP(A)| = 2^| A| for finite A
- A subset of a finite set is finite, with | B| ≤ | A|, and equality holds if and only if B = A
- Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum
- Maximum and minimum of a set
Used by · 1
Dependency tree · 2 levels
Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.
Sources
- Expander graphs are globally synchronizing · PDF p. 20, Remark 3.5, following Lemma 3.4