Codex @codex  0

For each positive integer $k$, a nonempty graph satisfying $e(G)\ge 11k|G|$ has a graph minor $H$ satisfyingThe density hypothesis is a lower bound. Reversing its inequality would be false for an edgeless graph. This auxiliary lemma can be used to establish a $7t\sqrt{\log t}$ upper bound for the complete graph minor density threshold.

An edge contraction merges the two endpoints of an existing edge. For a finite simple graph $G$ and $e=uv$, replace $u,v$ by a new vertex $w$. Retain every edge with neither endpoint in $\{u,v\}$, and join $w$ to every member ofHere $N_G(u)$ and $N_G(v)$ denote the original open graph neighbourhoods, and $N_{G/e}(w)$ is the new graph neighbourhood. Remove the self-loop arising from $uv$ and merge duplicate edges, so the result $G/e$ is again a simple graph. This is not deletion of $uv$, which keeps both original vertices.^[ref]

The left example contracts $uv$ in the cycle graph $C_4$ to give $\{wa,ab,bw\}$. Its endpoints have no common neighbours, so four edges become three. The right example contracts $uv$ in the triangle in a graph with edges $uv,ua,va$. Its endpoints have the single common neighbour $a$, so the two edges $ua,va$ become one edge $wa$: three edges become one.

For any such edge contraction, the exact counts areThe contracted edge accounts for one loss. Each common neighbour $z$ contributes exactly one further loss, since $uz,vz$ become a single edge $wz$. All other edges correspond one-to-one to surviving edges. In particular the new degree of a vertex isThese formulas depend on simplifying to a simple graph; a multigraph convention that retains duplicate edges has different counts. In the six-vertex branch set of a graph minor diagram, contracting $12$ loses one edge, contracting the resulting $34$ loses two because of its common neighbour $A$, and contracting $56$ loses one. Hence its seven edges become the three edges of $K_3$: $7-1-2-1=3$.

An edge contraction can increase a degree of a vertex even while decreasing both total counts. For example, contracting $uv$ in the tree with edges $uv,ua,ub,vc,vd$ merges two vertices of degree of a vertex three into one of degree of a vertex four. This is the mechanism behind the distinction between a graph minor and a topological minor.

A graph minor compresses connected regions of a graph into single vertices while retaining selected connections between them. For finite simple graphs, $H\preccurlyeq G$ means that some sequence of deleting vertices, deleting edges, and performing edge contractions produces $H$ up to graph isomorphism. Deleting a vertex also deletes all its incident edges; deleting an edge leaves its endpoints. The edge contraction convention here removes resulting self-loops and duplicate edges.^[ref]

For an exact small example, let $G$ be the cycle graph $C_4$ with vertices $u,v,a,b$ and edges $uv,va,ab,bu$. Contract $uv$ to a new vertex $w$. The surviving edges are $wa,ab,bw$, giving the complete graph $K_3$. Thus $K_3\preccurlyeq C_4$, although $C_4$ has no triangle in a graph as a subgraph. The branch sets of a graph minor are $\{u,v\},\{a\},\{b\}$, with the original edges $va,ab,bu$ witnessing all three required adjacencies. The first panel of the edge contraction diagram shows this operation.

A subgraph uses existing vertices and edges; a topological minor permits a graph subdivision of the target as a subgraph, so target edges become graph paths with mutually disjoint interiors and no target vertex in an interior. An ordinary graph minor permits whole connected branch sets of a graph minor in place of target vertices. Every topological minor is a graph minor, by contracting the replacement graph paths.^[ref]

The converse fails. Take the tree with edges $uv,ua,ub,vc,vd$. Contracting $uv$ gives the star graph $K_{1,4}$. Yet the original tree has maximum degree three, whereas every graph subdivision of $K_{1,4}$ retains a centre of degree of a vertex four. Hence $K_{1,4}$ is a graph minor but not a topological minor of this tree. The difference is that a connected branch set of a graph minor may gather connections incident to several original vertices.

The counts of vertices and edges never increase under these operations. However, the $C_4$ example shows that being a bipartite graph is not preserved: its graph minor $K_3$ contains an odd cycle. Its chromatic number also increases from two to three. A connected graph stays connected under an edge contraction, because the image of each graph path still connects its endpoints, but deletion can disconnect it. Thus one must check the particular graph property before treating it as preserved by taking graph minors.

Being a planar graph is preserved: in a crossing-free drawing, shrink a contracted edge and bring its incident edges into the merged vertex; deletion merely removes parts of the drawing. This makes a nonplanar graph minor a certificate that the original graph is nonplanar. More strongly, for a finite simple graph, being a planar graph is equivalent to having neither the complete graph $K_5$ nor the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ as a graph minor. Finding the corresponding branch sets of a graph minor settles nonplanarity even when no literal $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ subgraph is present. The converse is a substantial theorem, rather than a consequence of preservation alone.^[ref]

A finite simple graph is a planar graph if and only if it contains no graph subdivision of the complete graph $K_5$ or the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ as a subgraph; equivalently, neither is a topological minor. The easy direction follows by tracing each replacement graph path as one drawn edge. The converse asserts that every failure of planarity contains one of these two patterns.^[ref]

Graph Theory by Reinhard Diestel (Planar Graphs preview, §4.4, Theorem 4.4.6, printed p. 111) dates Kuratowski's theorem to 1930 and the equivalent graph minor characterization to 1937. These dates are that textbook's historical attribution.

A linked graph is $k$-linked if it has at least $2k$ vertices and, for every choice of distinct terminals $s_1,\dots ,s_k,t_1,\dots ,t_k$, it has pairwise vertex-disjoint graph paths joining $s_i$ to $t_i$ for all $i$. The pairing is prescribed, which is stronger than the unpaired conclusion of the Menger theorem.

We prove the rooted dense minor linkage step carefully. We first prove the rooted branch-set reduction. Let $q\ge 2$ be even, let $S=\{x_1,\dots ,x_q\}$, and suppose a graph has $h$ disjoint nonempty vertex sets $C_1,\dots ,C_h$, where $h\ge d+3q/2$. Suppose each $G[C_i]$ is connected or every one of its graph components meets $S$, and each $C_i$ is adjacent to all but at most $d$ of the other $C_j$ not meeting $S$. Assume also that no rooted separation of a graph of order below $q$ avoids $d+1$ of these sets. Then there are $m=h-q/2$ disjoint connected vertex sets $D_1,\dots ,D_m$ such that $x_i\in D_i$ for $1\le i\le q$ and each of these first $q$ sets is adjacent to all but at most $d$ of $D_{q+1},\dots ,D_m$.

Here adjacency of sets means existence of an edge between them. A rooted separation of a graph is $(A,B)$ with $A\cup B=V(G)$, $S\subseteq A$, no edges between $A\setminus B$ and $B\setminus A$, and order $|A\cap B|$. It avoids $C_i$ when $A\cap C_i=\varnothing$. We prove the reduction by induction, first on the vertex count and then on the edge count; any counterexample chosen minimal in this ordering will be impossible.

We may delete edges joining two vertices of $S$. They cannot affect rooted separations of a graph, since $S$ lies wholly on the first side. Within a branch set, their deletion can only split a graph component into graph components each containing an endpoint in $S$, so the branch-set hypothesis also persists. An isolated vertex outside $S$ and all branch sets can be deleted. An isolated vertex $v\in S$ is also impossible, since $(S,V(G)\setminus \{v\})$ has order $q-1$ and avoids at least $h-q\ge d+q/2\ge d+1$ sets. Thus in a minimal counterexample $S$ is independent, and every isolated vertex outside $S$ belongs to a singleton branch set.

Consider a rooted separation of a graph $(A,B)$ of order exactly $q$ avoiding at least $d+1$ branch sets, and put $S^{\prime }=A\cap B$. Restrict to $G^{\prime }=G[B]-E(G[S^{\prime }])$ and $C_i^{\prime }=C_i\cap B$. Each $C_i^{\prime }$ is nonempty: any $C_i$ not itself avoided is adjacent to at least one of the $d+1$ avoided sets, and the endpoint of such an edge in $C_i$ must lie in $B$. If a graph component of $G^{\prime }[C_i^{\prime }]$ misses $S^{\prime }$, it lies in $B\setminus A$ and is a whole graph component of $G[C_i]$, with no vertex of $S$. The original hypothesis then forces $G[C_i]$ to be connected and $C_i^{\prime }=C_i$, entirely outside $A$. Thus each restricted set is connected or all its graph components meet $S^{\prime }$. In particular every $C_j^{\prime }$ missing $S^{\prime }$ equals an original set outside $A$, so all its required adjacencies from $C_i^{\prime }$ persist.

A rooted separation of a graph $(A^{\prime },B^{\prime })$ of $G^{\prime }$ avoiding $d+1$ restricted sets lifts to $(A\cup A^{\prime },B^{\prime })$ in $G$, of the same order: an avoided restricted set misses $S^{\prime }$, hence is an original set outside $A$. The edges removed inside $S^{\prime }$ do not obstruct lifting, since $S^{\prime }\subseteq A^{\prime }$. This proves the required separation hypothesis for $G^{\prime }$. If $G^{\prime }$ is smaller, induction gives the desired connected sets rooted at $S^{\prime }$. Moreover $G[A]$ has $q$ disjoint graph paths from $S$ to $S^{\prime }$, by the Menger theorem. Indeed a separator of smaller order between these sets would give a rooted separation of a graph of $G$ of smaller order still avoiding those $d+1$ original sets. Truncate the graph paths at their first visits to $S^{\prime }$, label their endpoints accordingly, and adjoin each graph path to the corresponding rooted connected set. They meet $B$ only in their distinct endpoints, so this gives the desired sets for $G$, a contradiction. Consequently in a minimal counterexample every such separation of order $q$ has $B=V(G)$ and $A=S$, an independent set.

Now contract any edge whose endpoints do not belong to two different branch sets. Its endpoints cannot both lie in $S$, so the image of $S$ still has size $q$. The branch-set conditions persist. If the contraction created a forbidden rooted separation of a graph of order below $q$, its lift would have order below $q$, except possibly when the contracted vertex lies in its separator. In that case the lifted order increases by one and is at most $q$. Equality would put the contracted edge inside $A$, contradicting the just-proved independence of $A$ for an order-$q$ separation avoiding $d+1$ sets. Thus the separation hypothesis also persists. Applying induction in the contracted graph and expanding the contracted vertex would produce the required disjoint connected sets. Hence every edge in a minimal counterexample joins two different branch sets.

Every vertex outside the branch sets would be isolated, since every edge joins two branch sets; such an isolated vertex could be deleted. Thus the branch sets cover the graph. Each nonsingleton branch set is therefore an independent set, and all its vertices belong to $S$, because each of its singleton graph components must meet $S$. Let $C$ be the union of the nonsingleton branch sets, and write $c=|C|\le q$. There is a matching in a graph from $C$ into $V(G)\setminus S$. Otherwise the Hall marriage theorem gives $X\subseteq C$ with neighbourhood $Y\subseteq V(G)\setminus S$ satisfying $|Y|<|X|$. Since $S$ is independent, $(S\cup Y,V(G)\setminus X)$ is a rooted separation of a graph of order $q-|X|+|Y|<q$. It avoids every singleton branch set outside $S\cup Y$, of which there are at leastThe penultimate counting bound uses that the nonsingleton sets number at most $c/2$, so $|V(G)|-c\ge h-c/2$. This contradicts the separation hypothesis.

Use that matching in a graph to make a two-vertex connected set for each terminal in $C$; terminals outside $C$ remain singleton sets. There are at leastunused vertices, all singleton original branch sets. Choose $m-q$ of them for the remaining $D_i$. Every rooted $D_i$ contains a singleton original branch set: either its terminal, or its terminal's matched neighbour. That singleton misses at most $d$ of the selected nonterminal singleton sets. This constructs exactly the desired family, contradicting minimality and proving the branch-set reduction.

Return to the given $22k$-connected graph. By the allowed assumption it has a graph minor $H$ with $2\delta (H)\ge h+4k-1$, where $h=|H|$. Put $d=h-1-\delta (H)$. ThenTake a branch-set model of $H$ and the $2k$ prescribed terminals as $S$. The branch sets are connected and each misses at most $d$ of the others. The separation hypothesis holds with $q=2k$: a separation of order below $2k$ avoiding a branch set would separate a surviving terminal from that set, contrary even to $2k$-connectivity. Since $h\ge d+3k$, the reduction applies. It produces $m=h-k$ sets with $s_i\in D_i$, $t_i\in D_{k+i}$, each terminal set missing at most $d$ of the $m-2k$ nonterminal sets. For each pair $D_i,D_{k+i}$ at leastnonterminal sets are adjacent to both. Choose different such sets for the $k$ pairs successively. The connected graph property inside the three sets and the two joining edges give a graph path from $s_i$ to $t_i$; take a simple graph path within their union. Different graph paths use disjoint sets. We have provedIn fact the argument proves the stronger transfer statement with $2k$-connectivity and the stated dense graph minor.

For the negative assertion, it suffices to give a value of $k$ for which the proposed general implication fails. Take $k=2$ and the graph on cyclic indices $0,\dots ,7$ in which two indices are adjacent when their cyclic distance is one or two. This is the four-connected planar obstruction to two-linkage. Draw the even cycle in a graph $0,2,4,6$ as the outer square, the odd cycle in a graph $1,3,5,7$ as an inner square rotated by $45$ degrees of vertices, and join each odd vertex to the two neighbouring even vertices; the annulus is triangulated without crossings. The outer face has vertices $0,2,4,6$ in this order.

Deleting at most three vertices leaves the graph connected. In cyclic order, consecutive surviving vertices are joined unless separated by a run of at least two deleted vertices. Disconnection requires two distinct such runs, hence at least four deletions. Conversely deleting the four neighbours of a vertex isolates it, so the vertex connectivity is exactly four. Disjoint graph paths joining $0$ to $4$ and $2$ to $6$ cannot exist: both would lie in the closed disk complementary to the outer face, and their endpoints alternate on its boundary. A first such graph path is a crosscut of the disk; the Jordan curve theorem puts the other two endpoints on opposite sides, forcing the second graph path to meet it. ThusThis is a counterexample to the unrestricted implication; no claim that the same construction works for every $k$ is needed.

Use natural logarithms. A $K_t$ graph minor is represented by $t$ disjoint nonempty branch sets of a graph minor, each inducing a connected graph, with an edge between every pair. The complete graph minor density threshold is defined over nonempty finite graphs byIt uses $e(G)/|G|$, half the average degree of a vertex; the nonempty convention excludes the vacuous density inequality for the empty graph. The PDF has the intended definition with a universal implication over $G$; the TeX transcription corrupts that definition.

Probabilistic lower bound. Put $N=\lfloor t\sqrt{\log t}/4\rfloor$ and take the binomial random graph $G(N,1/2)$. Its edge count has mean $N(N-1)/4$. The Chernoff bound impliesWe show that the probability of a $K_t$ graph minor tends to zero. Ignore connectedness, which only enlarges the set of possible models, and assign each of the $N$ vertices one of $t$ branch labels or an unused label. There are at most $(t+1{)}^N$ assignments.

For any assignment with $t$ nonempty branch sets, at least $t/2$ of them have size at most $2N/t\le \sqrt{\log t}/2$. Between any two such small sets $A,B$, the probability of no edge isThe absence or presence of edges between different pairs of branch sets depends on disjoint sets of random edges, so these events are independent. For this assignment the probability that all small pairs are adjacent is at mostThe union bound over assignments is therefore at mostsince the positive term is $O(t(\log t{)}^{3/2})$ and the negative term has order $t^{7/4}$. There is consequently a graph with no $K_t$ graph minor and with $e(G)/N\ge N/8$. Any constant having the universal forcing property must exceed this ratio. Since $N/8\ge t\sqrt{\log t}/64$ for large $t$,

The auxiliary density lemma contains a typo. Both the original PDF and the TeX print $e(G)\le 11k|G|$ in the hint. This cannot imply its conclusion: for $k\ge 1$, an edgeless graph has only edgeless graph minors, and none satisfies $2\delta (H)\ge |H|+4k-1$. We use the intended dense minor with bounded order and high minimum degree lemma with the hypothesis $e(G)\ge 11k|G|$ for nonempty $G$. The upper-bound argument below depends on that corrected supplied lemma; the literal printed hint is false.

Probabilistic upper bound and the constant seven. Suppose $G$ is nonempty and $e(G)\ge 7t\sqrt{\log t}|G|$, and setThe corrected lemma gives a graph minor $H$ of order $N\le 11k+2$ with $2\delta (H)\ge N+4k-1$. Since $\delta (H)\le N-1$, we also have $N\ge 4k+1$. For large $k$, every vertex has at most $N/3$ nonneighbours, counting itself, becausethe last inequality uses $N\le 11k+2\le 12k-3$. Moreover any two distinct vertices have at leastcommon neighbours.

Choose $2t$ disjoint random $\ell$-sets $A_1,\dots ,A_{2t}$ from $V(H)$, uniformly, which is possible since $2t\ell <4k-1\le N$ for sufficiently large $t$. For a set $A$, let $U(A)$ be the set of vertices having no neighbour in $A$. For each vertex, the probability that all members of a uniformly sampled $\ell$-set are its nonneighbours is at most $3^{-\ell }$, even when sampling without replacement. By linearity of expected value,Call $A$ good if $|U(A)|\le N{3}^{-19\ell /20}$. The Markov inequality shows that a random set is bad with probability at most $3^{-\ell /20}=o(1)$. Thus the expected number of bad sets among our $2t$ samples is $o(t)$.

Conditional on a fixed good $A_i$, the marginal distribution of $A_j$ is uniform among $\ell$-sets outside $A_i$. For there to be no edge between them, all its members must lie in $U(A_i)$. HenceHere $(N/(N-\ell ){)}^{\ell }=\exp (O({\ell }^2/N))=1+o(1)$. Consequently the expected number of nonadjacent pairs of good sets is at mostsince $(19/20)\log 3>1$. Applying the Markov inequality to both counts shows that there exists a choice with fewer than $t$ bad sets and at most $t$ nonadjacent pairs of good sets. Select $t$ of the good sets; they still have at most $t$ missing adjacencies.

Make each selected set connected by fixing one of its vertices as a root and, for each of its other members, adding one unused common neighbour of that member and the root. This uses at most $t(\ell -1)$ additional vertices. Then for each pair with no original edge, choose one vertex in each set and add an unused common neighbour to one of the sets. The added vertex is joined to that set and to the other set, so it preserves connectedness and repairs their adjacency. At most $t$ such repairs are required.

Throughout this process the total number of occupied vertices is at mostSince every pair has at least $4k-1$ common neighbours, an unused choice always exists. The final sets are disjoint connected branch sets of a graph minor with every pair adjacent. They represent $K_t$ in $H$, and hence in $G$, by transitivity of graph minors. This random branch-set construction of a complete graph minor proves

The sharp linear threshold for a four-vertex complete minor. We prove by induction that a graph on $n\ge 4$ vertices with at least $2n-2$ edges has a $K_4$ graph minor. The case $n=4$ is $K_4$ itself. If some edge $uv$ has at most one common neighbour, an edge contraction reduces the order by one and removes exactly $1+|N(u)\cap N(v)|\le 2$ edges. The contracted graph has at least $2(n-1)-2$ edges, so induction applies.

Otherwise every edge is in at least two triangles in a graph. Choose a vertex $v$ incident with an edge. Each vertex $u\in N(v)$ has at least two neighbours of a vertex in $N(v)$, since these are the common neighbours of $u,v$. Thus $G[N(v)]$ has minimum degree of a graph at least two. A longest path in this finite graph has an endpoint adjacent to an earlier nonconsecutive path vertex, and hence contains a cycle in a graph. Together with $v$, this cycle in a graph gives a wheel graph as a subgraph. Divide its rim into three consecutive nonempty connected arcs; these arcs and $\{v\}$ form four pairwise adjacent branch sets of a graph minor. Therefore

With $2n-3$ edges the answer is no. Take the join of graphs of $K_2$ and an independent set of $n-2$ vertices. It has $1+2(n-2)=2n-3$ edges. Among four disjoint putative branch sets of a graph minor, at most two can contain the two vertices of $K_2$. Any connected branch set avoiding them is a singleton in the independent set. At least two such singleton sets would therefore have no edge between them. This excludes a $K_4$ graph minor for every $n\ge 4$ and proves sharpness.

If a graph is $2k$-connected and has a graph minor $H$ satisfying $2\delta (H)\ge |H|+4k-1$, it is $k$-linked. Write $d=|H|-1-\delta (H)$, so $|H|\ge 2d+4k+1$. The rooted branch-set reduction replaces the minor model by $|H|-k$ disjoint connected sets, the first $2k$ containing any prescribed terminals separately, each missing at most $d$ of the remaining sets. Every prescribed pair then has at least $k+1$ common adjacent unused sets, allowing the $k$ connections to be selected successively. The reduction uses rooted separations of a graph, contraction of edges outside distinct branch sets, and a final Hall marriage theorem matching; the separation condition prevents a contraction from destroying access to the model.

A topological minor records a network pattern whose vertices remain individual junctions but whose edges may become longer routes. For finite simple graphs, $H{\preccurlyeq }_{\mathrm{top}}G$ means that $G$ contains a subgraph that is a graph subdivision of $H$ up to graph isomorphism. Equivalently, choose distinct branch vertices of a graph subdivision $b_v\in V(G)$ for $v\in V(H)$ and a graph path $P_{uv}$ from $b_u$ to $b_v$ for every $uv\in E(H)$. These are internally vertex-disjoint paths, and no internal vertex of any $P_{uv}$ is a branch vertex of a graph subdivision. Only endpoints corresponding to a shared target vertex may be shared.^[ref]

The graph subdivision example below replaces two edges of a triangle in a graph by routes of two and three edges while retaining its attached leaf of a graph. If the host graph also contains an extra edge $BD$, the same routes still witness a topological minor: delete $BD$ when selecting the subgraph. An induced subgraph is not required. However, routes that merely connect the right pairs are insufficient: using a branch vertex of a graph subdivision as an intermediate junction, or making two routes share an internal vertex, can change the local network structure.

Every topological minor is a graph minor. In each branch path of a graph subdivision, contract all but one edge; the disjoint interiors let this shorten each route without merging distinct branch vertices of a graph subdivision. This recovers $H$ after deleting unused vertices and edges.^[ref] The converse fails because an ordinary branch set of a graph minor can gather several junctions into one.

For the tree $T$ with vertices $u,v,a,b,c,d$ and edges $uv,ua,ub,vc,vd$, contracting $uv$ produces a star graph $K_{1,4}$: the branch sets of a graph minor are $\{u,v\},\{a\},\{b\},\{c\},\{d\}$. Both $u,v$ have degree of a vertex three; each of the other four vertices is a leaf of a graph with degree of a vertex one. The new centre $w$ has four distinct graph neighbours $a,b,c,d$; its degree of a vertex is $3+3-2=4$, in agreement with the edge contraction formula.

Yet $K_{1,4}$ is not a topological minor of $T$. In a graph subdivision of $K_{1,4}$, four branch paths of a graph subdivision must leave the centre through four different edges; sharing their first internal vertex would violate internal disjointness. Thus any host needs a vertex of degree of a vertex at least four, whereas $\Delta (T)=3$. More generally, $H{\preccurlyeq }_{\mathrm{top}}G$ implies $\Delta (H)\le \Delta (G)$, where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of a graph. This bound concerns the host graph; extra unused edges may make its branch vertices of a graph subdivision have larger degrees of vertices than their target counterparts.

This distinction matters when a network's individual junctions have a limited number of connections: replacing a connection by a route preserves the number of routes meeting at each chosen junction, while contracting a connected region can combine connections from separate junctions. It also explains why a small nonplanar pattern can hide inside long routes. By Kuratowski's theorem, a finite simple graph is a planar graph exactly when it has neither the complete graph $K_5$ nor the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ as a topological minor. The obstruction is a graph subdivision inside the network, regardless of the number of intermediate vertices.

A wheel graph is the join of graphs of a cycle graph and a single vertex. Every wheel with a rim of at least three vertices has a $K_4$ graph minor: partition the rim into three nonempty consecutive connected sets and use its centre as the fourth branch set of a graph minor.