In graph theory, the Robertson–Seymour theorem (also called the graph minors theorem) states that the undirected graphs, partially ordered by the graph minor relationship, form a well-quasi-ordering. Equivalently, every family of graphs that is closed under taking minors can be defined by a finite set of forbidden minors, in the same way that Wagner's theorem characterizes the planar graphs as being the graphs that do not have the complete graph K 5 {\displaystyle K_{5}} or the complete bipartite graph K 3 , 3 {\displaystyle K_{3,3}} as minors. The Robertson–Seymour theorem is named after mathematicians Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour, who proved it in a series of twenty papers spanning over 500 pages from 1983 to 2004. Before its proof, the statement of the theorem was known as Wagner's conjecture after the German mathematician Klaus Wagner, although Wagner said he never conjectured it. A weaker result for trees is implied by Kruskal's tree theorem, which was conjectured in 1937 by Andrew Vázsonyi and proved in 1960 independently by Joseph Kruskal and S. Tarkowski.
Statement A minor of an undirected graph G {\displaystyle G} is any graph that may be obtained from G {\displaystyle G} by a sequence of zero or more contractions of edges of G {\displaystyle G} and deletions of edges and vertices of G {\displaystyle G} . The minor relationship forms a partial order on the set of all distinct finite undirected graphs, as it obeys the three axioms of partial orders: it is reflexive (every graph is a minor of itself), transitive (a minor of a minor of G {\displaystyle G} is itself a minor of G {\displaystyle G} ), and antisymmetric (if two graphs G {\displaystyle G} and G {\displaystyle G} are minors of each other, then they must be isomorphic). However, if graphs that are isomorphic may nonetheless be considered as distinct objects, then the minor ordering on graphs forms a preorder, a relation that is reflexive and transitive but not necessarily antisymmetric. A preorder is said to form a well-quasi-ordering if it contains neither an infinite descending chain nor an infinite antichain. For instance, the usual ordering on the non-negative integers is a well-quasi-ordering, but the same ordering on the set of all integers is not, because it contains the infinite descending chain 0, −1, −2, −3... Another example is the set of positive integers ordered by divisibility, which has no infinite descending chains, but where the prime numbers constitute an infinite antichain. The Robertson–Seymour theorem states that finite undirected graphs and graph minors form a well-quasi-ordering. The graph minor relationship does not contain any infinite descending chain, because each contraction or deletion reduces the number of edges and vertices of the graph (a non-negative integer). The nontrivial part of the theorem is that there are no infinite antichains, infinite sets of graphs that are all unrelated to each other by the minor ordering. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a set of graphs, and M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is a subset of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} containing one representative graph for each equivalence class of minimal elements (graphs that belong to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} but for which no proper minor belongs to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} ), then M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} forms an antichain; therefore, an equivalent way of stating the theorem is that, in any infinite set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} of graphs, there must be only a finite number of non-isomorphic minimal elements. Another equivalent form of the theorem is that, in any infinite set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} of graphs, there must be a pair of graphs one of which is a minor of the other. The statement that every infinite set has finitely many minimal elements implies this form of the theorem, for if there are only finitely many minimal elements, then each of the remaining graphs must belong to a pair of this type with one of the minimal elements. And in the other direction, this form of the theorem implies the statement that there can be no infinite antichains, because an infinite antichain is a set that does not contain any pair related by the minor relation.
Forbidden minor characterizations
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
