Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently I saw some graph theory proofs works like the following:

Theorem: If A then B.

Proof: Assume G be a counterexample of A, then saturate the graph(as in add edges) until adding any edge will violate A. Let the saturated graph be G'. Then use G' to derive a contradiction.

Why don't we just chose a saturated graph instead of spending a few sentence to pick any counterexample and then build a saturated example?

Note: A a saturated counterexample always exists if there is a counterexample. For any finite non-empty set, give an partial order, then there exist a maximal element. One can use this to prove any finite non-empty set of graphs A, there has to be a saturated graph(as in adding one more edge, the graph is no longer in A).

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Your note is twice as long as the proof you're criticizing :-) The proof, like your note, is essentially just briefly explaining why there must be a saturated graph. Even just explaining the term "saturated graph" would take up about as much space. Compare:

Let $G$ be a counterexample to $A$. Saturate the graph by adding edges until adding any edge will violate $A$. Let the saturated graph be $G'$. Then...

Let $G$ be a saturated counterexample to $A$, where a graph is saturated if it is impossible to add edges without violating $A$. Then ...

This saves only a couple of letters, but fails to explain why there should be such a counterexample. Unless the level of the text is such that this can be assumed to be obvious, the first seems preferable.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.