format: text

text:
# The Strong Perfect Graph Theorem

## 1 Introduction

We begin with definitions of some of the terms we use which may be nonstandard. All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. The complement $`\overline{G}`$ of a graph $`G`$ has the same vertex set as $`G`$, and distinct vertices $`u,v`$ are adjacent in $`\overline{G}`$ just when they are not adjacent in $`G`$. A hole of $`G`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$ which is a cycle of length $`>3`$. An antihole of $`G`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$ whose complement is a hole in $`\overline{G}`$. A graph $`G`$ is Berge if every hole and antihole of $`G`$ has even length.

A clique in $`G`$ is a subset $`X`$ of $`V(G)`$ so that every two members of $`X`$ are adjacent. A graph $`G`$ is perfect if for every induced subgraph $`H`$ of $`G`$, the chromatic number of $`H`$ equals the size of the largest clique of $`H`$. In 1961 Claude Berge  proposed the so-called Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture, the main theorem of this paper:

###### 1.1

A graph is Berge if and only if it is perfect.

It is easy to see that every perfect graph is Berge, and so to prove (1.1) it remains to prove the converse. This has received a great deal of attention over the past 40 years, but so far has resisted solution. Most of the previous approaches on (1.1) fall into two classes: proving that the theorem holds for graphs with some particular graph excluded as an induced subgraph (there are a number of these for different subgraphs, but such an approach obviously cannot do the whole thing), and using linear programming methods to investigate the structure of a minimal counterexample. (There are rich connections with linear and integer programming - see  for example.)

Our approach is different. Recently, Conforti, Cornuéjols and Vušković  conjectured that every Berge graph either falls into one of four well-understood classes, or it admits one of several kinds of decomposition. They pointed out that if this could be proved, and if also it could be shown that no minimal counterexample to (1.1) admits any such decomposition, then 1.1 would follow (for certainly no minimal counterexample to 1.1 can fall into the four basic classes). We have been able to prove both (except we need a fifth class).

Before we can be more precise we need more definitions. If $`XV(G)`$ we denote the subgraph of $`G`$ induced on $`X`$ by $`G|X`$. The line graph $`L(G)`$ of a graph $`G`$ has vertex set the set $`E(G)`$ of edges of $`G`$, and $`e,fE(G)`$ are adjacent in $`L(G)`$ if they share an end in $`G`$.

We need one other class of graphs, defined as follows. Let $`m,n2`$ be integers, and let $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_m\}`$, $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_m\}`$, $`\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\}`$, $`\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_n\}`$ be disjoint sets. Let $`G`$ have vertex set their union, and edges as follows:

* $`a_i`$ is adjacent to $`b_i`$ for $`1im`$, and $`c_j`$ is nonadjacent to $`d_j`$ for $`1jn`$
* there are no edges between $`\{a_i,b_i\}`$ and $`\{a_i^{},b_i^{}\}`$ for $`1i<i^{}m`$, and all four edges between $`\{c_j,d_j\}`$ and $`\{c_j^{},d_j^{}\}`$ for $`1j<j^{}n`$
* there are exactly two edges between $`\{a_i,b_i\}`$ and $`\{c_j,d_j\}`$ for $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, and these two edges are disjoint.

We call such a graph $`G`$ a bicograph. Let us say a graph $`G`$ is basic if either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$ is bipartite or is the line graph of a bipartite graph, or is a bicograph. (Note that if $`G`$ is a bicograph then so is $`\overline{G}`$.) It is easy to see that all basic graphs are perfect.

Now we turn to the various kinds of decomposition that we need. First, a decomposition due to Cornuéjols and Cunningham  — a 2-join in $`G`$ is a partition $`(X_1,X_2)`$ of $`V(G)`$ so that there exist disjoint nonempty $`A_i,B_iX_i(i=1,2)`$ satisfying:

* every vertex of $`A_1`$ is adjacent to every vertex of $`A_2`$, and every vertex of $`B_1`$ is adjacent to every vertex of $`B_2`$,
* there are no other edges between $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$,
* for $`i=1,2`$, every component of $`G|X_i`$ meets both $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, and
* for $`i=1,2`$, if $`|A_i|=|B_i|=1`$ and $`G|X_i`$ is a path joining the members of $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, then it has length $`3`$.

If $`X,YV(G)`$ are disjoint, we say $`X`$ is complete to $`Y`$ (or the pair $`(X,Y)`$ is complete) if every vertex in $`X`$ is adjacent to every vertex in $`Y`$; and we say $`X`$ is anticomplete to $`Y`$ if there are no edges between $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Our second decomposition is a very slight variant on the “homogenous sets” due to Chvátal and Sbihi  — an M-join in $`G`$ is a partition of $`V(G)`$ into six nonempty sets, $`(A,B,C,D,E,F)`$, so that:

* every vertex in $`A`$ has a neighbour in $`B`$ and a nonneighbour in $`B`$, and vice versa
* the pairs $`(C,A),(A,F),(F,B),(B,D)`$ are complete, and
* the pairs $`(D,A),(A,E),(E,B),(B,C)`$ are anticomplete.

A path in $`G`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$ which is non-null, connected and in which every vertex has degree $`2`$ (this definition is highly nonstandard, and we apologise, but it avoids writing “induced” about 600 times), and an antipath is an induced subgraph whose complement is a path. The length of a path is the number of edges in it (and the length of an antipath is the number of edges in its complement). We therefore recognize paths and antipaths of length $`0`$. If $`P`$ is a path, $`P^{}`$ denotes the set of internal vertices of $`P`$, called the interior of $`P`$; and similarly for antipaths. Let $`A,B`$ be disjoint subsets of $`V(G)`$. We say the pair $`(A,B)`$ is balanced if there is no odd path between nonadjacent vertices in $`B`$ with interior in $`A`$, and there is no odd antipath between adjacent vertices in $`A`$ with interior in $`B`$. A set $`XV(G)`$ is connected if $`G|X`$ is connected (so $`\mathrm{}`$ is connected); and anticonnected if $`\overline{G}|X`$ is connected.

The third kind of decomposition we use is due to Chvátal  — a skew partition in $`G`$ is a partition $`(A,B)`$ of $`V(G)`$ so that $`A`$ is not connected and $`B`$ is not anticonnected. Skew partitions pose a difficulty that the other two decompositions do not, for it has not been shown that a minimal counterexample to 1.1 cannot admit a skew partition; indeed, this is a well-known open question, first raised by Chvátal , the so-called “skew partition conjecture”. We get around it by confining ourselves to balanced skew partitions, which do not present this difficulty.

We shall prove the following, a form of which was conjectured in :

###### 1.2

For every Berge graph $`G`$, either $`G`$ is basic, or one of $`G`$, $`\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits an M-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof of 1.1, assuming 1.2 and 4.8.
Suppose that 1.1 is false, and let $`G`$ be a counterexample with $`|V(G)|`$ as small as possible. Since every perfect graph is Berge, it follows that $`G`$ is Berge and not perfect. Every basic graph is perfect, and so $`G`$ is not basic. It is shown in  that $`G`$ does not admit a 2-join. Since Lovász  showed that the complement of a perfect graph is perfect, it follows that $`\overline{G}`$ is also a counterexample to 1.1 of minimum size, and therefore $`\overline{G}`$ also does not admit a 2-join. It is shown in  that $`G`$ does not admit an M-join, and we shall prove in 4.8 that $`G`$ does not admit a balanced skew partition. It follows that $`G`$ violates 1.2, and therefore there is no such graph $`G`$. This proves 1.1.

All nontrivial bicographs admit skew partitions, so if we delete “balanced” from 1.2 then we no longer need to consider bicographs as basic — four basic classes suffice. Unfortunately, nontrivial bicographs do not admit balanced skew partitions, and general skew partitions are not good enough for the application to 1.1, so we have to do it the way we did.

How can we prove a theorem of the form of 1.2? There are several other theorems of this kind in graph theory - eg , , ,  and others. All these theorems say that “every graph (or matroid) not containing an object of type X either falls into one of a few basic classes or admits a decomposition”. And for each of these theorems, the technique of the proof is the same: we judiciously choose a small X-free graph $`H`$ (X-free means not containing an object of type X) which does not fall into any of the basic classes; check that it has a decomposition of the kind it is supposed to have; and show that this decomposition extends to a decomposition of every bigger X-free graph containing $`H`$. That proves that the theorem is true for all X-free graphs that contain $`H`$, so now we focus on the X-free graphs that do not contain $`H`$. Repeat as often as necessary (with different small graphs in place of $`H`$) until the graphs that remain are sufficiently restricted that they can be handled by some other means. We shall see that the same technique also works for decomposing Berge graphs.

The paper is organized as follows. The next three sections develop tools that will be needed all through the paper. Section 2 concerns a fundamental lemma of Roussel and Rubio; we give several variations and extensions of it, and more in section 3, of a different kind. In section 4 we develop some features of skew partitions, to make them easier to handle in the main proof, and in particular, prove that no minimum imperfect graph admits a balanced skew partition. In section 5 we begin on the main proof. Sections 5-8 prove that every Berge graph containing a “substantial” line graph as an induced subgraph, satisfies 1.2 (“substantial” means a line graph of a bipartite subdivision of a 3-connected graph $`J`$, with some more conditions if $`J=K_4`$). Section 9 proves the same thing for line graphs of subdivisions of $`K_4`$ that are not “substantial” — this is where bicographs come in. In section 10 we prove that Berge graphs containing an “even prism” satisfy 1.2. (To prove this we may assume we are looking at a Berge graph that does not contain the line graph of a subdivision of $`K_4`$, for otherwise we could apply the results of the earlier sections. The same thing happens later - at each step we may assume the current Berge graph does not contain any of the subgraphs that were handled in earlier steps.) Sections 11-13 do the same for “long odd prisms”, and section 14 does the same for a subgraph we call the “double diamond”. Section 15 is a break for resharpening the tools we proved in the first four sections, and in particular, here we prove that no minimum imperfect graph admits a skew partition. Section 16 proves that any Berge graph containing what we call an “odd wheel” satisfies 1.2, in sections 17-23 we prove the same for wheels in general, and finally in section 24 we handle Berge graphs not containing wheels.

These steps are summarized more precisely in the next theorem, which we include now in the hope that it will be helpful to the reader, although some necessary definitions have not been given yet — for the missing definitions, the reader should see the appropriate section(s) later. Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_{11}`$ be the classes of Berge graphs defined as follows (each is a subclass of the previous class):

* $`_1`$ is the class of all Berge graphs $`G`$ such that for every bipartite subdivision $`H`$ of $`K_4`$, every induced subgraph of $`G`$ isomorphic to $`L(H)`$ is degenerate
* $`_2`$ is the class of all graphs $`G`$ such that $`G,\overline{G}_1`$ and no induced subgraph of $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`L(K_{3,3})`$
* $`_3`$ is the class of all Berge graphs $`G`$ so that for every bipartite subdivision $`H`$ of $`K_4`$, no induced subgraph of $`G`$ or of $`\overline{G}`$ is isomorphic to $`L(H)`$
* $`_4`$ is the class of all $`G_3`$ so that no induced subgraph of $`G`$ is an even prism
* $`_5`$ is the class of all $`G_3`$ so that no induced subgraph of $`G`$ or of $`\overline{G}`$ is a long prism
* $`_6`$ is the class of all $`G_5`$ such that no induced subgraph of $`G`$ is isomorphic to a double diamond
* $`_7`$ is the class of all $`G_6`$ so that $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ do not contain odd wheels
* $`_8`$ is the class of all $`G_7`$ so that $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ do not contain pseudowheels
* $`_9`$ is the class of all $`G_8`$ such that $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ do not contain wheels
* $`_{10}`$ is the class of all $`G_9`$ such that, for every hole $`C`$ in $`G`$ of length $`6`$, no vertex of $`G`$ has three consecutive neighbours in $`C`$, and the same holds in $`\overline{G}`$
* $`_{11}`$ is the class of all $`G_{10}`$ such that every antihole in $`G`$ has length $`4`$.

###### 1.3

The following are the main steps of the proof of 1.2:

1. For every Berge graph $`G`$, either $`G`$ is a line graph of a bipartite graph, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition, or $`G_1`$; and (consequently), either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ is a line graph of a bipartite graph, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G,\overline{G}_1`$
2. For every $`G`$ with $`G,\overline{G}_1`$, either $`G=L(K_{3,3})`$, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_2`$
3. For every $`G_2`$, either $`G`$ is a bicograph, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_3`$
4. For every $`G_1`$, either $`G`$ is an even prism with exactly $`9`$ vertices, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition, or $`G_4`$
5. For every $`G_3`$, either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits an M-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_5`$
6. For every $`G_5`$, either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_6`$
7. For every $`G_6`$, either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_7`$
8. For every $`G_7`$, either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_8`$
9. For every $`G_8`$, either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_9`$
10. For every $`G_9`$, either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G_{10}`$
11. For every graph $`G_{10}`$, either $`G_{11}`$ or $`\overline{G}_{11}`$
12. For every graph $`G_{11}`$, either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G`$ is complete or bipartite.

The twelve statements of 1.3 are proved in 5.1, 5.4, 9.6, 10.6, 13.4, 14.3, 16.3, 18.7, 23.2, 23.4, 23.5, and 24.1 respectively.

## 2 The Roussel-Rubio lemma

There is a beautiful and very powerful theorem of  which we use many times throughout the paper. (We proved it independently, in joint work with Carsten Thomassen, but Roussel and Rubio found it earlier.) Its main use is to show that in some respects, the common neighbours of an anticonnected set of vertices (in a Berge graph) act like or almost like the neighbours of a single vertex.

If $`XV(G)`$ and $`vV(G)`$, we say $`v`$ is $`X`$-$`complete`$ if $`v`$ is adjacent to every vertex in $`X`$ (and consequently $`vX`$), and an edge $`uv`$ is $`X`$-complete if $`u,v`$ are both $`X`$-complete. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ (we remind the reader that this means $`P`$ is an induced subgraph which is a path), of length $`2`$, and let the vertices of $`P`$ be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order. A leap for $`P`$ (in $`G`$) is a pair of nonadjacent vertices $`a,b`$ of $`G`$ so that there are exactly six edges of $`G`$ between $`a,b`$ and $`V(P)`$, namely $`ap_1,ap_2,ap_n,bp_1,bp_{n1},bp_n`$.

The Roussel-Rubio lemma (slightly reformulated for convenience) is the following.

###### 2.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`X`$ be an anticonnected subset of $`V(G)`$, and $`P`$ be a path in $`GX`$ with odd length, such that both ends of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete. Then either:

1. some edge of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete, or
2. $`P`$ has length $`5`$ and $`X`$ contains a leap for $`P`$, or
3. $`P`$ has length $`3`$ and there is an odd antipath joining the internal vertices of $`P`$ with interior in $`X`$.

This has a number of corollaries that again we shall need throughout the paper, and in this section we prove some of them.

###### 2.2

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`X`$ be an anticonnected subset of $`V(G)`$, and $`P`$ be a path in $`GX`$ with odd length, such that both ends of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete, and no edge of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete. Then every $`X`$-complete vertex has a neighbour in $`P^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`v`$ be $`X`$-complete. Certainly $`P`$ has length $`>1`$, since its ends are $`X`$-complete and therefore nonadjacent. Suppose first it has length $`>3`$. Then by 2.1, $`X`$ contains a leap, and so there is a path $`Q`$ with ends in $`X`$ and with $`Q^{}=P^{}`$. Then $`v`$ is adjacent to both ends of $`Q`$, and since $`G|(V(Q)\{v\})`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`Q^{}=P^{}`$, as required. Now suppose $`P`$ has length $`3`$, and let its vertices be $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_4`$ in order. By 2.1, there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ between $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$. Since $`Q`$ cannot be completed to an odd antihole via $`p_3\text{-}v\text{-}p_2`$, it follows that $`v`$ is adjacent to one of $`p_2,p_3`$, as required.

Here is another easy lemma that gets used enough that it is worth stating separately.

###### 2.3

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`XV(G)`$ be anticonnected, and let $`P`$ be a path or hole in $`GX`$, so that at least three vertices of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete. Let $`Q`$ be a subpath of $`P`$ (and hence of $`G`$) with both ends $`X`$-complete. Then the number of $`X`$-complete edges in $`Q`$ has the same parity as the length of $`Q`$. In particular, if $`P`$ is a hole, then either there are an even number of $`X`$-complete edges in $`P`$, or there are exactly two $`X`$-complete vertices and they are adjacent.

Proof. The second assertion follows from the first. For the first, we use induction on the length of $`Q`$. If some internal vertex of $`Q`$ is $`X`$-complete then the result follows from the inductive hypothesis, so we may assume not. If $`Q`$ has length $`1`$ or even then the theorem holds, so we may assume its length is $`3`$ and odd. By hypothesis there is an $`X`$-complete vertex $`v`$ say of $`P`$ that is not an end of $`Q`$, and therefore does not belong to $`Q`$; and since $`P`$ is a path or hole, it follows that $`v`$ has no neighbour in $`Q^{}`$, contrary to 2.2. This proves 2.3.

A triangle in $`G`$ is a set of three vertices, mutually adjacent. We say a vertex $`v`$ can be linked onto a triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ (via paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$) if:

* the three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are mutually vertex-disjoint
* for $`i=1,2,3`$ $`a_i`$ is an end of $`P_i`$
* for $`1i<j3`$, $`a_ia_j`$ is the unique edge of $`G`$ between $`V(P_i)`$ and $`V(P_j)`$
* $`v`$ has a neighbour in each of $`P_1,P_2`$ and $`P_3`$.

The following is well-known and quite useful:

###### 2.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and suppose $`v`$ can be linked onto a triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$. Then v is adjacent to at least two of $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$.

Proof. Let $`v`$ be linked via paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$. For $`1i3`$, $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`P_i`$; let $`P_i`$ be the path from $`v`$ to $`a_i`$ with interior in $`V(Q_i)`$. At least two of $`Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$ have lengths of the same parity, say $`Q_1,Q_2`$; and since $`G|(V(Q_1)V(Q_2))`$ is not an odd hole, it is a cycle of length $`3`$, and the claim follows.

A variant of 2.2 is sometimes useful, the following:

###### 2.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`XV(G)`$, and let $`P`$ be a path in $`GX`$ of odd length, with vertices be $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$, so that $`p_1,p_n`$ are $`X`$-complete, and no edge of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete. Let $`vV(G)`$ be $`X`$-complete. Then either $`v`$ is adjacent to one of $`p_1`$,$`p_2`$, or the only neighbour of $`v`$ in $`P^{}`$ is $`p_{n1}`$.

Proof. By 2.2, $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`P^{}`$, and we may assume that $`p_{n1}`$ is not its only such neighbour, so $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n2}\}`$. If $`P`$ has length $`3`$ then the result follows, so we may assume its length is at least $`5`$. By 2.1, there is a leap $`a,b`$ for $`P`$ in $`X`$; so there is a path $`a\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{n1}\text{-}b`$. Now $`\{p_1,p_2,a\}`$ is a triangle, and $`v`$ can be linked onto it via the three paths $`b\text{-}p_1`$, $`P\{p_1,p_{n1},p_n\}`$, $`a`$; and so $`v`$ has two neighbours in the triangle, by 2.4, and the claim follows.

###### 2.6

If $`G`$ is Berge and $`A,BV(G)`$ are disjoint, and $`vV(G)(AB)`$, and $`v`$ is complete to $`B`$ and anticomplete to $`A`$, then $`(A,B)`$ is balanced.

The proof is clear.

###### 2.7

Let $`(A,B)`$ be balanced in a Berge graph $`G`$. Let $`CV(G)(AB)`$. Then :

1. if $`A`$ is connected and every vertex in $`B`$ has a neighbour in $`A`$, and $`A`$ is anticomplete to $`C`$, then $`(C,B)`$ is balanced
2. if $`B`$ is anticonnected and no vertex in $`A`$ is $`B`$-complete, and $`B`$ is complete to $`C`$, then $`(A,C)`$ is balanced.

Proof. The first statement follows from the second by taking complements, so it suffices to prove the second. Suppose $`u,vA`$ are adjacent and joined by an odd antipath $`P`$ with interior in $`C`$. Since $`B`$ is anticonnected and $`u,v`$ both have non-neighbours in $`B`$, they are also joined by an antipath $`Q`$ with interior in $`B`$, which is even since $`(A,B)`$ is balanced. But then $`u\text{-}P\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}u`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. Now suppose there are nonadjacent $`u,vC`$, joined by an odd path $`P`$ with interior in $`A`$. Then $`P`$ has length $`5`$, since otherwise its vertices could be reordered to be an odd antipath of the kind we already handled. The ends of $`P`$ are $`B`$-complete, and no internal vertex is $`B`$-complete, and so $`B`$ contains a leap for $`P`$ by 2.1; and hence there is an odd path with ends in $`B`$ and interior in $`A`$, which is impossible since $`(A,B)`$ is balanced. This proves 2.7.

We already said what we mean by linking a vertex onto a triangle, but now we do the same for an anticonnected set. We say an anticonnected set $`X`$ can be linked onto a triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ (via paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$) if:

* the three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are mutually vertex-disjoint
* for $`i=1,2,3`$ $`a_i`$ is an end of $`P_i`$
* for $`1i<j3`$, $`a_ia_j`$ is the unique edge of $`G`$ between $`V(P_i)`$ and $`V(P_j)`$
* each of $`P_1,P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ contains an $`X`$-complete vertex.

There is a corresponding extension of 2.4, the following:

###### 2.8

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`X`$ be an anticonnected set, and suppose $`X`$ can be linked onto a triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ via $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`P_i`$ have ends $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$, and let $`b_i`$ be the unique vertex of $`P_i`$ that is $`X`$-complete. Then either at least two of $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ have length $`0`$ (and hence two of $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$ are $`X`$-complete) or one of $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ has length $`0`$ and the other two have length $`1`$ (say $`P_3`$ has length $`0`$); and in this case, every $`X`$-complete vertex in $`G`$ is adjacent to one of $`a_1`$,$`a_2`$.

Proof. Some two of $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ have lengths of the same parity, say $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Hence the path $`Q=b_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}P_2\text{-}b_2`$ (with the obvious meaning - we shall feel free to specify paths by whatever notation is most convenient) is odd, and its ends are $`X`$-complete, and none of its internal vertices are $`X`$-complete. If $`Q`$ has length $`1`$ then the theorem holds, so we assume it has length $`3`$. By 2.2, every $`X`$-complete vertex has a neighbour in $`Q^{}`$, and since $`b_3`$ is $`X`$-complete, it follows that $`b_3=a_3`$. Hence we may assume both $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ have length $`1`$ for otherwise the claim holds. Suppose that $`Q`$ has length $`3`$. Then $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ have length $`1`$, and the claim holds again. So we may assume (for a contradiction) that $`Q`$ has length $`5`$, and from the symmetry we may assume $`P_1`$ has length $`2`$. Since $`b_3`$ is not adjacent to the end $`b_1`$ of $`Q`$ or to its neighbour in $`Q`$, and yet it has at least two neighbours in $`Q^{}`$ (namely $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$), this contradicts 2.5. This proves 2.8.

As we said earlier, the main use of 2.1 is to show that the common neighbours of an anticonnected set behave in some respects like the neighbours of a single vertex. From this point of view, 2.1 itself tells us something about when there can be an odd “pseudohole”, in which one “vertex” is actually an anticonnected set. We also need a version of this when there are two such vertices, the following.

###### 2.9

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G(XY)`$ with even length $`>0`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, so that $`p_1`$ is the unique $`X`$-complete vertex of $`P`$ and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex of $`P`$. Then either:

1. $`P`$ has length $`4`$ and there are nonadjacent $`x_1,x_2X`$ so that $`x_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_2`$ is a path, or
2. $`P`$ has length $`4`$ and there are nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2Y`$ so that $`y_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{n1}\text{-}y_2`$ is a path, or
3. $`P`$ has length 2 and there is an antipath $`Q`$ between $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$, and an antipath $`R`$ between $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and exactly one of $`Q`$,$`R`$ has odd length.

In each case, either $`(V(Pp_1),X)`$ or $`(V(Pp_n),Y)`$ is not balanced.

Proof. It follows from the hypotheses that $`X`$,$`Y`$ and $`V(P)`$ are mutually disjoint. If $`P`$ has length $`2`$, choose an antipath $`Q`$ between $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$, and an antipath $`R`$ between $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ with interior in $`Y`$. Then $`p_2\text{-}Q\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_1\text{-}R\text{-}p_2`$ is an antihole, and so exactly one of $`Q`$,$`R`$ has odd length and the theorem holds. So we may assume $`P`$ has length $`4`$. We may assume that $`V(G)=V(P)XY`$, by deleting any other vertices. Let $`G^{}`$ be obtained from $`GY`$ by adding a new vertex y with neighbour set $`X\{p_n\}`$. Let $`P^{}`$ be the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}y`$ of $`G^{}`$. Then $`P^{}`$ has odd length $`5`$. If $`G^{}`$ is Berge then by 2.1 there is a leap for $`P^{}`$ in $`X`$, and the result follows. So we may assume $`G^{}`$ is not Berge.

Assume first that there is an odd hole $`C`$ of length $`7`$ in $`G^{}`$. It necessarily uses $`y`$, and the neighbours of $`y`$ in $`C`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and no other vertices of $`Cy`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Hence there is an odd path $`Q`$ in $`GY`$ of length $`5`$, with both ends $`Y`$-complete and no internal vertices $`Y`$-complete. So the ends of $`Q`$ belong to $`X\{p_n\}`$ and its interior to $`V(P)p_n`$. By 2.1 $`Y`$ contains a leap for $`Q`$; so there is an odd path $`R`$ of length $`5`$ with ends ($`y_1,y_2`$ say) in $`Y`$ and with interior in $`V(P)p_n`$. Since $`R`$ cannot be completed to a hole via $`y_2\text{-}p_n\text{-}y_1`$ it follows that $`p_n`$ has a neighbour in $`R^{}`$, and so $`p_{n1}`$ belongs to $`R`$. If also $`p_1`$ belongs to $`R`$ then the theorem holds, so we may assume it does not. Since $`R`$ is odd and $`P`$ is even it follows that $`p_2`$ also does not belong to $`R`$, and so $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in $`R^{}`$; yet the ends of $`R`$ are $`X`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 2.2. This completes the case when there is an odd hole in $`G^{}`$ of length $`7`$.

Since an odd hole of length $`5`$ is also an odd antihole, we may assume that there is an odd antihole in $`G^{}`$, say $`D`$. Again $`D`$ must use $`y`$, and uses exactly two nonneighbours of $`y`$; so in $`G`$ there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ between adjacent vertices of $`Pp_n`$ (say $`u`$ and $`v`$), and with interior in $`X\{p_n\}`$. Since $`u`$ and $`v`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, they are also joined by an antipath $`R`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and $`R`$ must also be odd since its union with $`Q`$ is an antihole. Since $`R`$ cannot be completed to an antihole via $`v\text{-}p_n\text{-}u`$ it follows that $`p_n`$ is adjacent to one of $`u`$,$`v`$, and hence we may assume that $`u=p_{n2}`$ and $`v=p_{n1}`$. Since $`P`$ has length $`4`$ it follows that $`u`$,$`v`$ are also joined by an antipath with interior in $`X`$, say $`S`$, and again $`S`$ is odd since its union with $`R`$ is an antihole. But $`S`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`v\text{-}p_1\text{-}u`$, a contradiction. This proves 2.9.

Next we need a version of 2.1 for holes. Let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$, and let $`e=uv`$ be an edge of it. A leap for $`C`$ (in $`G`$, at $`uv`$) is a leap for the path $`Ce`$ in $`Ge`$. A hat for $`C`$ (in $`G`$, at $`uv`$) is a vertex of $`G`$ adjacent to $`u`$ and $`v`$ and to no other vertex of $`C`$.

###### 2.10

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`XV(G)`$ be anticonnected, let $`C`$ be a hole in $`GX`$ with length $`>4`$, and let $`e=uv`$ be an edge of $`C`$. Assume that $`u,v`$ are $`X`$-complete and no other vertex of $`C`$ is $`X`$-complete. Then either $`X`$ contains a hat for $`C`$ at $`uv`$, or $`X`$ contains a leap for $`C`$ at $`uv`$.

Proof. Let the vertices of $`C`$ be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, where $`u=p_1`$ and $`v=p_n`$. Let $`G_1=G|(V(C)X)`$, and let $`G_2=G_1e`$. If $`G_2`$ is Berge, then from 2.1 applied to the path $`Ce`$ in $`G_2`$ it follows that $`X`$ contains a leap for $`C`$ at $`uv`$. So we may assume that $`G_2`$ is not Berge. Consequently it has an odd hole or antihole $`D`$ say, and since $`D`$ is not an odd hole or antihole in $`G_1`$ it must use both $`p_1`$ and $`p_n`$. Suppose first that $`D`$ is an odd hole. Since every vertex in $`X`$ is adjacent to both $`p_1`$ and $`p_n`$ it follows that at most one vertex of $`X`$ is in $`D`$; and since $`G_2X`$ has no cycles, there is exactly one vertex of $`X`$ in $`D`$, say $`x`$. Hence $`Dx`$ is a path of $`G_2X`$ between $`p_1`$ and $`p_n`$, and so $`Dx=Ce`$; and since $`D`$ is a hole of $`G_2`$ it follows that $`x`$ has no neighbours in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$, and therefore is a hat as required. Next assume that $`D`$ is an antihole. Since it uses both $`p_1`$ and $`p_n`$, and they are nonadjacent in $`G_2`$, it follows that they are consecutive in $`D`$, so the vertices of $`D`$ can be numbered $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_m`$ in order, where $`d_1=p_1`$ and $`d_m=p_n`$, and therefore $`m5`$. Consequently, both $`d_2`$ and $`d_{m1}`$ are not in $`X`$, since they are not complete to $`\{p_1,p_n\}`$, and therefore $`d_1,d_2,d_{m1},d_m`$ are vertices of $`C`$. Yet $`d_1d_{m1},d_{m1}d_2,d_2d_m`$ are edges of $`G_1`$, which is impossible since $`n6`$. This proves 2.10.

There is an analogous version of 2.9, as follows.

###### 2.11

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G(XY)`$ with even length $`4`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, so that $`p_1`$ is the unique $`X`$-complete vertex of $`P`$, and $`p_1,p_n`$ are the only $`Y`$-complete vertices of $`P`$. Then either:

1. there exists $`xX`$ non-adjacent to all of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$, or
2. there are nonadjacent $`x_1,x_2X`$ so that $`x_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_2`$ is a path.

Proof. The proof is similar to that of 2.9. We may assume $`V(G)=V(P)XY`$. Let $`G^{}`$ be obtained from $`GY`$ by adding a new vertex y with neighbour set $`X\{p_1,p_n\}`$. If $`G^{}`$ is Berge then the result follows from 2.10, so we may assume $`G^{}`$ is not Berge. Assume first that there is an odd hole $`C`$ of length $`7`$ in $`G^{}`$. Hence there is an odd path $`Q`$ in $`GY`$ of length $`5`$, with both ends $`Y`$-complete and no internal vertices $`Y`$-complete. So the ends of $`Q`$ belong to $`X\{p_1,p_n\}`$ and its interior to $`V(P^{})`$. By 2.1 $`Y`$ contains a leap for $`Q`$; so there is an odd path $`R`$ of length $`5`$ with ends ($`y_1,y_2`$ say) in $`Y`$ and with interior in $`V(P^{})`$. Since $`R`$ is odd and $`R^{}`$ is a subpath of the even path $`P^{}`$, it follows that not both $`p_2`$ and $`p_{n1}`$ belong to $`R`$; but then $`R`$ can be completed to an odd hole via one of $`y_2\text{-}p_n\text{-}y_1`$ , $`y_2\text{-}p_1\text{-}y_1`$, a contradiction. This completes the case when there is an odd hole in $`G^{}`$ of length $`7`$, so now we may assume that there is an odd antihole in $`G^{}`$, say $`D`$. Again $`D`$ must use $`y`$, and uses exactly two nonneighbours of $`y`$; so in $`G`$ there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ between adjacent vertices of $`P^{}`$ (say $`u`$ and $`v`$), and with interior in $`X\{p_n\}`$. Since $`u`$ and $`v`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, they are also joined by an antipath $`R`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and $`R`$ must also be odd since its union with $`Q`$ is an antihole. Since one of $`p_1`$,$`p_n`$ is nonadjacent to both of $`u,v`$, we may complete $`R`$ to an odd antihole via one of $`u\text{-}p_1\text{-}v`$,$`u\text{-}p_n\text{-}v`$, a contradiction. This proves 2.11.

## 3 Paths and antipaths meeting

Another class of applications of 2.1 is to the situation when a big path or hole meets a big antipath or antihole. In this section we prove a collection of useful lemmas of this type. First, a neat application of 2.1 (we include this only because it is striking — in fact we do not use it at all).

###### 3.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$, and $`D`$ an antihole in $`G`$, both of length $`8`$. Then $`|V(C)V(D)|3`$.

Proof. It is easy to see that $`|V(C)V(D)|4`$, without using that $`G`$ is Berge. Suppose that $`|V(C)V(D)|=4`$; then $`V(C)V(D)`$ is the vertex set of a $`3`$-edge path. Let $`C`$ have vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ in order, and $`D`$ have vertices $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ in order, where $`m,n8`$ and $`p_1=q_2,p_2=q_4,p_3=q_1,p_4=q_3`$. Let $`P`$ be the path $`p_4\text{-}p_5\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1`$, and $`Q`$ the antipath $`q_4\text{-}q_5\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}q_1`$. Let $`X`$ be the interior of $`Q`$. Then $`p_1`$ and $`p_4`$ are $`X`$-complete (since $`D`$ is an antihole), and $`P`$ is a path with length odd and $`5`$ between these two vertices. If some vertex $`p_i`$ say in the interior of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete, then since $`p_i`$ is nonadjacent to both $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ we can complete $`Q`$ to an odd antihole via $`q_1\text{-}p_i\text{-}q_4`$, a contradiction. So by 2.1 $`X`$ contains a leap for $`P`$; so there exists $`i`$ with $`5i<n`$ and a path $`P^{}`$ joining $`q_i`$ and $`q_{i+1}`$ with the same interior as $`P`$. Since $`n8`$, either $`i>5`$ or $`i+1<n`$ and from the symmetry we may assume the first. But then $`P^{}`$ can be completed to an odd hole via $`q_{i+1}\text{-}p_2\text{-}q_i`$, a contradiction. This proves 3.1.

The next two lemmas are results of the same kind:

###### 3.2

Let $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ be a path in a Berge graph $`G`$. Let $`2sm2`$, and let $`p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s+1}`$ be an antipath, where $`n2`$ is odd. Assume that each of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1}\}`$ and a neighbour in $`\{p_{s+2},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$. Then either:

* $`s3`$ and the only nonedges between $`\{p_{s2},p_{s1},p_s,p_{s+1},p_{s+2}\}`$ and $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ are $`p_{s1}q_n,p_sq_1,p_{s+1}q_n`$, or
* $`sm3`$ and the only nonedges between $`\{p_{s1},p_s,p_{s+1},p_{s+2},p_{s+3}\}`$ and $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ are $`p_sq_1,p_{s+1}q_n,p_{s+2}q_1`$.

Proof. The antipath $`p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s+1}`$ is even, of length $`4`$; all its vertices have neighbours in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1}\}`$ except $`p_{s+1}`$, and they all have neighbours in $`\{p_{s+2},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ except $`p_s`$. Since the sets $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1}\},\{p_{s+2},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ are both connected and are anticomplete to each other, it follows from 2.9 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ and the symmetry that we may assume that there are adjacent vertices $`u,v\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1}\}`$ so that $`u\text{-}p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}v`$ is an antipath. Since $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_s`$ and to $`u`$ it follows that $`s3`$, $`v=p_{s1}`$ and $`u=p_{s2}`$. Since $`p_{s2}\text{-}p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s1}`$ is an odd antipath of length $`5`$, and its ends are anticomplete to $`\{p_{s+1},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ and its internal vertices are not, it follows from 2.1 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ that there are adjacent $`w,x\{p_{s+1},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ such that $`w\text{-}p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}x`$ is an antipath. Since $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_s`$ and to $`w`$ it follows that $`x=p_{s+1}`$ and $`w=p_{s+2}`$. But then the theorem holds. This proves 3.2.

###### 3.3

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$ of length $`6`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ in order, and let $`Q`$ be an antipath with vertices $`p_1,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n,p_2`$, with length $`4`$ and even. Let $`zV(G)`$, complete to $`V(Q)`$ and with no neighbours among $`p_3,\mathrm{},p_m`$. There is at most one vertex in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ complete to either $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$ or $`\{q_2,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and any such vertex is one of $`p_3,p_m`$.

Proof. It follows that none of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ belong to $`C`$, since they are all adjacent to $`z`$. Let $`X=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and let $`Y_1,Y_2`$ be the sets of vertices in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ complete to $`Xq_n`$,$`Xq_1`$ respectively.
(1) $`Y_1Y_2\{p_m\}`$, and $`Y_2Y_1\{p_3\}`$.
For suppose some $`p_iY_1`$, and is not in $`Y_2`$; then since the odd antipath $`Qp_2`$ cannot be completed to an odd antihole via $`q_n\text{-}p_i\text{-}p_1`$, it follows that $`i=m`$. This proves (1).
(2) If $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$ then $`p_3Y_1Y_2`$, and if $`Y_2\{p_3\}`$ then $`p_mY_1Y_2`$.
For assume $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$, and choose $`i`$ with $`3im1`$ minimum so that $`p_iY_1`$. By (1), $`p_iY_2`$, so we may assume $`i>3`$, for otherwise the claim holds. If $`i`$ is odd, then the path $`p_2\text{-}p_3\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is odd and between $`Xq_n`$-complete vertices, and no internal vertex is $`Xq_n`$-complete, and yet the $`Xq_n`$-complete vertex $`z`$ does not have a neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So $`i`$ is even. The path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1`$ is therefore odd, and has length $`3`$, and its ends are $`Xq_1`$-complete, and the $`Xq_1`$-complete vertex $`z`$ does not have a neighbour in its interior; so by 2.2 some vertex $`v`$ of its interior is in $`Y_2`$, and therefore in $`Y_1Y_2`$ by (1). But the path $`z\text{-}p_2\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is odd, and between $`X`$-complete vertices, and has no more such vertices in its interior, and $`v`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves (2).

Now not both $`p_3,p_m`$ are in $`Y_1Y_2`$, for otherwise $`Q`$ could be completed to an odd antihole via $`p_2\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_1`$. Hence we may assume $`p_3Y_1Y_2`$, and so from (2), $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$. By (1), $`Y_2\{p_3\}Y_1`$, and so $`Y_1Y_2\{p_3,p_m\}`$. We may therefore assume that $`Y_1Y_2=\{p_3,p_m\}`$, for otherwise the theorem holds. In particular, $`p_3Y_2`$. If also $`p_mY_2`$, then $`p_3\text{-}p_4\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ is an odd path between $`Xq_1`$-complete vertices, and none of its internal vertices are $`Xq_1`$-complete, and yet the $`Xq_1`$-complete vertex $`z`$ does not have a neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So $`p_mY_2`$, and so $`p_mY_1`$; but then $`p_3\text{-}q_1\text{-}q_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_3`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. This proves 3.3.

## 4 Skew partitions

A maximal connected subset of a nonempty set $`AV(G)`$ is called a component of $`A`$, and a maximal anticonnected subset is called an anticomponent of $`A`$. Let us say a skew partition $`A,B`$ of $`G`$ is loose if either some vertex in $`B`$ has no neighbour in some component of $`A`$, or some vertex in $`A`$ is complete to some anticomponent of $`B`$.

In this section we investigate what skew partitions look like in a “minimum imperfect graph”, a Berge graph which is the smallest counterexample to 1.1; and in particular, we shall show that no skew partition in such a graph can be either balanced (defined in the first section) or loose. So, in order to prove 1.1, it would be enough to prove a weaker form of our main theorem 1.2, in which “admits a balanced skew partition” is repaced by “admits a balanced or loose skew partition”. In a way this would be easier, because many of the skew partitions we find later in the paper are loose. But we might as well prove the stronger form, because as we shall show below, any Berge graph admitting a loose skew partition also admits a balanced one.

###### 4.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and suppose that $`G`$ admits a skew partition $`(A,B)`$ so that either some component of $`A`$ or some anticomponent of $`B`$ has only one vertex. Then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be the components of $`A`$, and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ the anticomponents of $`B`$. So the sets $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ are pairwise disjoint, all non-empty, and partition $`A`$, and $`m2`$; and similarly for $`B`$. By taking complements if necessary we may assume that $`|A_1|=1`$, $`A_1=\{a_1\}`$ say. Let $`N`$ be the set of vertices of $`G`$ adjacent to $`a_1`$; so $`NB`$. Assume first that $`N`$ is not anticonnected. Then $`(V(G)N,N)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, and it is easy to check that it is balanced, as required. So we may assume that $`N`$ is anticonnected. Consequently $`N`$ is a subset of one of $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$, say $`B_1`$. Choose $`b_2B_2`$. Then $`N^{}=N\{b_2\}`$ is not anticonnected, and so $`(V(G)N^{},N^{})`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, and once again it is easily checked to be balanced. This proves 4.1.

###### 4.2

If $`G`$ is Berge, and admits a loose skew partition, then it admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Let $`(A,B)`$ be a loose skew partition of $`G`$. By taking complements if necessary, we may assume that some vertex in $`B`$ has no neighbour in some component of $`A`$. With $`G`$ fixed, let us choose the skew partition $`(A,B)`$ and a component $`A_1`$ of $`A`$ and an anticomponent $`B_1`$ of $`B`$ with $`|B|2|B_1|`$ minimum, such that some vertex in $`B_1`$ (say $`b_1`$) has no neighbour in $`A_1`$. (We call this property the “optimality” of $`(A,B)`$.) Let the other components of $`A`$ be $`A_2,\mathrm{},A_m`$, and the other anticomponents of $`B`$ be $`B_2,\mathrm{},B_n`$. By 4.1 we may assume that no $`|A_i|`$ or $`|B_j|=1`$, and in this case we shall show that the skew partition $`(A,B)`$ is balanced.
(1) For $`2jn`$, no vertex in $`A`$ is $`B_j`$-complete and not $`B_1`$-complete, and every vertex in $`BB_1`$ has a neighbour in $`A_1`$.
For the first claim, assume some vertex $`vA`$ is $`B_2`$-complete and not $`B_1`$-complete, say. Let $`A_1^{}=A_1`$ if $`vA_1`$, and let $`A_1^{}`$ be a maximal connected subset of $`A_1v`$ otherwise. (So $`A_1^{}`$ is nonempty since we assumed $`|A_1|2`$.) Let $`A^{}=Av`$ and $`B^{}=B\{v\}`$; then $`B_2`$ is still an anticomponent of $`B^{}`$, so $`(A^{},B^{})`$ is a skew partition, violating the optimality of $`(A,B)`$ (for since $`v`$ is not $`B_1`$-complete, there is an anticomponent of $`B^{}`$ including $`B\{v\}`$). For the second claim, assume that some vertex $`vB_2`$ say has no neighbour in $`A_1`$. Then since $`B_22`$, it follows that $`(A\{v\},Bv)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, again violating the optimality of $`(A,B)`$. This proves (1).

By 2.6, the pair $`(A_1,B_j)`$ is balanced, for $`2jn`$, since $`b_1`$ is complete to $`B_j`$ and has no neighbours in $`A_1`$. By (1) and 2.7.1, it follows that $`(A_i,B_j)`$ is balanced for $`2im`$ and $`2jn`$. It remains to check all the pairs $`(A_i,B_1)`$. Let $`1im`$, and let $`A_i^{}`$ be the set of vertices in $`A_i`$ that are not $`B_1`$-complete. By (1), no vertex in $`A_i^{}`$ is $`B_2`$-complete, and $`(A_i^{},B_2)`$ is balanced, and hence by 2.7.2, so is $`(A_i^{},B_1)`$, and consequently so is $`(A_i,B_1)`$. This proves that $`(A,B)`$ is balanced, and so completes the proof of 4.2.

###### 4.3

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of a Berge graph $`G`$. If either:

* there exist $`u,vB`$ joined by an odd path with interior in $`A`$, and joined by an even path with interior in $`A`$, or
* there exist $`u,vA`$ joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`B`$, and joined by an even antipath with interior in $`B`$,

then $`(A,B)`$ is loose and therefore $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. By taking complements we may assume that the first case of the theorem applies. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be the components of $`A`$, and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ the anticomponents of $`B`$. Since $`u,vB`$, and they are joined by an even path, they are therefore nonadjacent, and so belong to the same $`B_j`$, say $`B_1`$. There is an even path $`P_1`$ and an odd path $`P_2`$ joining $`u,v`$, both with interior in $`A`$. We may assume that $`P_1`$ has interior in $`A_1`$. Since the union of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is not a hole, it follows that $`P_2`$ also has interior in $`A_1`$. If $`u,v`$ are joined by a path with interior in $`A_2`$, then its union with one of $`P_1`$,$`P_2`$ would be an odd hole, a contradiction; so there is no such path. Hence one of $`u,v`$ has no neighbours in $`A_2`$, and hence $`(A,B)`$ is loose, and the theorem follows from 4.2. This proves 4.3.

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of $`G`$, and let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be the components of $`A`$, and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ the anticomponents of $`B`$. For $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, we say $`(i,j)`$ is a path pair if there is an odd path in $`G`$ with ends nonadjacent vertices of $`B_j`$ and with interior in $`A_i`$; and $`(i,j)`$ is an antipath pair if there is an odd antipath in $`G`$ with ends adjacent vertices of $`A_i`$ and with interior in $`B_j`$.

###### 4.4

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of a Berge graph $`G`$, and let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be the components of $`A`$, and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ the anticomponents of $`B`$. Then either:

* $`(A,B)`$ is loose or balanced, or
* $`(i,j)`$ is a path pair for all $`i,j`$ with $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, or
* $`(i,j)`$ is an antipath pair for all $`i,j`$ with $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$.

Proof. We may assume $`(A,B)`$ is not loose and not balanced.
(1) If for some $`i,j`$ there is an odd path of length $`5`$ with ends in $`B_j`$ and interior in $`A_i`$, then the theorem holds.
For assume there is such a path for $`i=j=1`$ say. Let this path, $`P_1`$ say, have vertices $`b_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}b_1^{}`$, where $`b_1,b_1^{}B_1`$ and $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_nA_1`$. Let $`2jn`$. Then $`P_1`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$ between common neighbours of $`B_j`$, and no internal vertex of it is $`B_j`$-complete since $`(A,B)`$ is not loose. By 2.1, $`B_j`$ contains a leap; so there exist nonadjacent $`b_j,b_j^{}B_j`$ so that $`b_j\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}b_j^{}`$ is a path. Hence $`(1,j)`$ is a path pair. Now let $`2im`$ and $`1jn`$. Since $`(A,B)`$ is not loose, $`b_j`$ and $`b_j^{}`$ both have neighbours in $`A_i`$, and so there is a path $`P_2`$ say joining them with interior in $`A_i`$; it is odd by 4.3, and so $`(i,j)`$ is a path pair. This proves (1).

From (1) we may assume that for all $`i,j`$, every odd path of length $`>1`$ with ends in $`B_j`$ and interior in $`A_i`$ has length 3; and similarly every odd antipath of length $`>1`$ with ends in $`A_i`$ and interior in $`B_j`$ has length 3. Consequently, every path pair is also an antipath pair (because a path of length 3 can be reordered to be an antipath of length 3). We may assume that $`(1,1)`$ is a path pair, and so there exist $`b_1,b_1^{}B_1`$ and $`a_1,a_1^{}A_1`$ so that $`b_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_1^{}\text{-}b_1^{}`$ is a path $`P_1`$ say. Let $`2im`$. Since $`b_1`$ and $`b_1^{}`$ both have neighbours in $`A_i`$, they are joined by a path with interior in $`A_i`$, odd by 4.3 ; and so by (1) it has length 3. Hence there exist $`a_i,a_i^{}A_i`$ so that $`b_1\text{-}a_i\text{-}a_i^{}\text{-}b_1^{}`$ is a path. By the same argument in the complement, it follows that for all $`1im`$ and $`2jn`$, there exist $`b_j,b_j^{}B_j`$ so that $`b_j\text{-}a_i\text{-}a_i^{}\text{-}b_j^{}`$ is a path. So every pair $`(i,j)`$ is both a path and antipath pair. This proves 4.4.

We can reformulate the previous result in a form that is easier to apply, as follows.

###### 4.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge. Suppose that there is a partition of $`V(G)`$ into four nonempty sets $`X,Y,L,R`$, such that there are no edges between $`L`$ and $`R`$, and $`X`$ is complete to $`Y`$. If either:

* some vertex in $`XY`$ has no neighbours in $`L`$ or no neighbours in $`R`$, or
* some vertex in $`LR`$ is complete to $`X`$ or complete to $`Y`$, or
* $`(L,Y)`$ is balanced

then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Certainly $`(LR,XY)`$ is a skew partition, so by 4.2 we may assume it is not loose, and therefore neither of the first two alternative hypotheses holds. So we assume the third hypothesis holds. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be the components of $`LR`$, and let $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ be the anticomponents of $`XY`$. Since $`X,Y,L,R`$ are all nonempty we may assume that $`A_1L`$, and $`B_1X`$. By hypothesis, $`(1,1)`$ is not a path or antipath pair, and so by 4.4 the skew partition is balanced. This proves 4.5.

In the main proof there will be several occasions when we need to show that a given skew partition is either loose or balanced, and some of them can be handled by the following. Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of $`G`$. We say that an anticonnected subset $`W`$ of $`B`$ is a kernel for the skew partition if some component of $`A`$ contains no $`W`$-complete vertex.

###### 4.6

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of a Berge graph $`G`$, and let $`W`$ be a kernel for it. Let $`A_1`$ be a component of $`A`$, and suppose that $`(A_1,W)`$ is balanced. Then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. By 4.2 we may assume $`(A,B)`$ is not loose. Let the components of $`A`$ be $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$, and the anticomponents of $`B`$ be $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$.
(1) $`(A_i,W)`$ is balanced for $`1im`$.
For this is true if $`i=1`$, so assume $`i>1`$. From 4.3 there is no odd path between nonadjacent vertices of $`W`$ with interior in $`A_i`$. Suppose there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ of length $`>1`$, with ends in $`A_i`$ and interior in $`W`$. Then it has length $`5`$, for otherwise it can be reordered to be an odd path that we have already shown impossible. Now the ends of $`Q`$ have no neighbours in the connected set $`A_1`$, and its internal vertices all have neighbours in $`A_1`$; and so by 2.1 in the complement, there is a leap in the complement; that is, there is an antipath with ends in $`A_1`$ and with the same interior as $`Q`$, which is impossible. This proves (1).

Since $`W`$ is anticonnected, we may assume that $`WB_1`$. Since (1) restores the symmetry between $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$, we may assume that there is no $`W`$-complete vertex in $`A_1`$. By 4.4 we may assume $`(1,2)`$ is a path or antipath pair. Suppose first that it is an antipath pair. Then there is an odd antipath $`Q_1`$ of length $`3`$ with ends in $`A_1`$ and interior in $`B_2`$. Since its ends both have nonneighbours in $`W`$, its ends are also joined by an antipath $`Q_2`$ with interior in $`W`$, odd by 4.3, contrary to (1). So there is no such $`Q_1`$. Hence there is an odd path $`P`$ with ends in $`B_2`$ and interior in $`A_1`$, necessarily of length $`5`$ (since we already did the antipath case). Since the interior of $`P`$ contains no $`W`$-complete vertex, 2.1 implies that $`W`$ contains a leap; and so there is a path with ends in $`W`$ with the same interior as $`P`$, a contradiction. This proves 4.6.

One can refine 4.6 a little more, as follows.

###### 4.7

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition of a Berge graph $`G`$, and let $`W`$ be a kernel for it. Let $`A_1`$ be a component of $`A`$, and suppose that

* every pair of nonadjacent vertices of $`W`$ with neighbours in $`A_1`$ are joined by an even path with interior in $`A_1`$
* every pair of adjacent vertices of $`A_1`$ with nonneighbours in $`W`$ are joined by an even antipath with interior in $`W`$.

Then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. This is immediate from 4.6 and 4.3.

By a minimum imperfect graph we mean a Berge graph $`G`$, not perfect, with $`|V(G)|`$ minimum. Now let us investigate skew partitions in a minimum imperfect graph.

###### 4.8

Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition in a minimum imperfect graph $`G`$, and let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ be defined as usual. For all $`i`$ with $`1im`$ there exists $`j`$ with $`1jn`$ such that $`(i,j)`$ is a path or antipath pair, and for all $`j`$ with $`1jn`$ there exists $`i`$ with $`1im`$ such that $`(i,j)`$ is a path or antipath pair.

Proof. The first statement is equivalent to the second by taking complements, since $`\overline{G}`$ also satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem and $`(B,A)`$ is a skew partition in it. It therefore suffices to prove the second statement, and we may assume $`j=1`$. Let $`G^{}`$ be the graph obtained from $`G`$ by adding a new vertex $`z`$ with neighbour set $`B_1`$.
(1)We may assume $`G^{}`$ is Berge.
For suppose it is not. Then in $`G^{}`$ there is an odd hole or antihole using $`z`$. Suppose first that there is an odd hole, $`C`$ say. Then the neighbours of $`z`$ in $`C`$ (say $`x,y`$) belong to $`B_1`$, and no other vertex of $`B_1`$ is in $`C`$. For $`2jn`$ no vertex of $`B_j`$ is in $`C`$ since it would be adjacent to $`x,y`$ and $`C`$ would have length $`4`$; so $`Cz`$ is an odd path of $`G`$, with ends in $`B_1`$ and with interior in $`A`$. Since the interior of this odd path is connected, it is a subset of one of $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$, say $`A_i`$; but then $`(i,1)`$ is a path pair and the theorem holds. So we may assume there is no such $`C`$. Now assume there is an odd antihole $`D`$ in $`G^{}`$, again using $`z`$. Then exactly two vertices of $`Dz`$ are nonadjacent to $`z`$, so all the others belong to $`B_1`$. Hence in $`G`$ there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ of length $`3`$, with ends $`x,yB_1`$ and with interior in $`B_1`$. Since both $`x`$ and $`y`$ have nonneighbours in the interior of $`Q`$ it follows that $`x,yB`$; and since they are adjacent they both belong to $`A_i`$ for some $`i`$. But then $`(i,1)`$ is an antipath pair. This proves (1).

For a subset $`X`$ of $`V(G)`$, we denote the size of the largest clique in $`X`$ by $`\omega (X)`$. Let $`\omega (B_1)=s`$, and $`\omega (AB)=t`$. Since $`G`$ is minimum imperfect it cannot be $`t`$-coloured.
(2) For $`1im`$ there is a subset $`C_iA_i`$ so that $`\omega (C_iB_1)=s`$ and

$$\omega ((A_iC_i)(BB_1))ts.$$

For let $`H=G^{}|(BA_i\{z\})`$; then $`H`$ is Berge, by (1). Now by , there are at least two vertices of $`G`$ not in $`H`$ (all the vertices in $`AA_i`$), and since $`H`$ has only one new vertex it follows that $`|V(H)|<|V(G)|`$. From the minimality of $`|V(G)|`$ we deduce that $`H`$ is perfect. Now a theorem of Lovász  shows that replicating a vertex of a perfect graph makes another perfect graph; so if we replace $`z`$ by a set $`Z`$ of $`ts`$ vertices all complete to $`B_1`$ and to each other, and with no other neighbours in $`A_iB`$, then the graph we make is perfect. From the construction, the largest clique in this graph has size $`t`$, and so it is $`t`$-colourable. Since $`Z`$ is a clique of size $`ts`$, we may assume that colours $`1,\mathrm{},s`$ do not occur in $`Z`$, and colours $`s+1,\mathrm{},t`$ do. Since $`B_1`$ is complete to $`Z`$, colours $`s+1,\mathrm{},t`$ do not occur in $`B_1`$, and so only colours $`1,\mathrm{},s`$ occur in $`B_1`$; and since $`\omega (B_1)=s`$, all these colours do occur in $`B_1`$. Since $`B_1`$ is complete to $`BB_1`$, none of colours $`1,\mathrm{},s`$ occur in $`BB_1`$. Let $`C_i`$ be the set of vertices $`vA_i`$ with colours $`1,\mathrm{},s`$. Then $`C_iB_1`$ has been coloured using only $`s`$ colours, and so $`\omega (C_iB_1)=s`$; and the remainder of $`Hz`$ has been coloured using only colours $`s+1,\mathrm{},t`$, and so

$$\omega ((A_iC_i)(BB_1))ts.$$

This proves (2).

Now let $`C=B_1C_1\mathrm{}C_m`$ and $`D=V(G)C`$. Since there are no edges between different $`A_i`$’s, it follows from (2) that $`\omega (C)=s`$, and similarly $`\omega (D)ts`$. Since $`|C|,|D|<|V(G)|`$ it follows that $`G|C,G|D`$ are both perfect; so they are $`s`$-colourable and $`(ts)`$-colourable, respectively. But then $`G`$ is $`t`$-colourable, a contradiction. This proves 4.8.

###### 4.9

Let $`G`$ be a minimum imperfect graph. Then $`G`$ admits no balanced skew partition, and consequently no skew partition of $`G`$ is loose.

Proof. The first claim follows from 4.8, and the second from 4.2. This proves 4.9.

At this stage we are not ready to prove that $`G`$ admits no skew partition at all; that will be shown later in the paper. But let us sketch the route. We will need three special graphs:

* A prism means a graph consisting of two vertex-disjoint triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$, $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$, and three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$, where each $`P_i`$ has ends $`a_i,b_i`$, and for $`1i<j3`$ the only edges between $`V(P_i)`$ and $`V(P_j)`$ are $`a_ia_j`$ and $`b_ib_j`$. The prism is long if at least one of the three paths has length $`>1`$.
* A double diamond means the graph with eight vertices $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_4,b_1,\mathrm{},b_4`$ and with the following adjacencies: every two $`a_i`$’s are adjacent except $`a_3a_4`$, every two $`b_i`$’s are adjacent except $`b_3b_4`$, and $`a_ib_i`$ is an edge for $`1i4`$.
* The third graph is just $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$, the line graph of the graph obtained from $`L(K_{3,3})`$ by deleting one edge.

Note that the second and third graphs in this list are isomorphic to their complements. We shall eventually prove that every Berge graph containing as an induced subgraph either a long prism or a double diamond or $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$ must satisfy the conclusion of 1.2, and consequently cannot be a minimum imperfect graph (and therefore nor is its complement). So once that is established, it will follow from the next theorem that no minimum imperfect graph admits a skew partition.

###### 4.10

If $`G`$ is Berge, and admits a skew partition, then either $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ contains as an induced subgraph either a long prism, or a double diamond, or $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$.

Proof. Let $`(A,B)`$ be a skew partition in $`G`$, which is not loose by 4.2. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m,B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ be as before. Suppose first that for some path pair $`(i,j)`$ there is an odd path $`P`$ of length $`5`$ with ends in $`B_j`$ and with interior in $`A_i`$; and we may assume $`i=j=1`$. Let the vertices of $`P`$ be $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order. Now the ends of $`P`$ are $`B_2`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, since the skew partition is not loose; so by 2.1, $`B_2`$ contains a leap $`x,y`$, where $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_2`$. But then the subgraph induced on $`V(P)\{x,y\}`$ is a long prism, as required. So we may assume that no such path has length $`5`$; and similarly no odd antipath with ends in some $`A_i`$ and interior in some $`B_j`$ has length $`5`$. So every path pair is also an antipath pair and vice versa (because all the corresponding odd paths and antipaths have length $`3`$ and so each is both a path and an antipath). We may therefore assume that $`(1,1)`$ is a path pair, and that there exist nonadjacent $`b_1,b_1^{}B_1`$ and adjacent $`a_1,a_1^{}A_1`$ so that $`b_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_1^{}\text{-}b_1^{}`$ is a path. Since the skew partition is not loose, $`a_1,a_1^{}`$ both have non-neighbours in $`B_2`$, and hence are joined by an antipath with interior in $`B_2`$; this antipath is odd, since its union with $`b_1,b_1^{}`$ induces an antihole, and since all such antipaths have length $`3`$ it follows that there exist nonadjacent $`b_2,b_2^{}B_2`$ so that $`b_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_1^{}\text{-}b_2^{}`$ is a path. Now $`b_1,b_1^{}`$ both have neighbours in $`A_2`$, since the skew partition is not loose, and hence are joined by a path with interior in $`A_2`$, and it is odd as usual, and hence has length 3; so there exist adjacent $`a_2,a_2^{}A_2`$ so that $`b_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_2^{}\text{-}b_1^{}`$ is a path. Since $`b_2\text{-}b_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_2^{}\text{-}b_1^{}\text{-}b_2`$ is not an odd hole, $`b_2`$ is adjacent to one of $`a_2,a_2^{}`$, and similarly so is $`b_2^{}`$. But $`b_2,b_2^{}`$ have no common neighbour in $`A_2`$, for if $`vA_2`$ were adjacent to them both then $`v\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_1^{}\text{-}b_2^{}\text{-}v`$ would be an odd hole. So there are exactly two edges between $`\{a_2,a_2^{}\}`$ and $`\{b_2,b_2^{}\}`$, forming an induced $`2`$-edge matching. There are two possible pairings; in one case the subgraph induced on these eight vertices is a double diamond, and in the other it is $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$. This proves 4.10.

## 5 Small attachments to a line graph

We come now to the first of the major steps of the proof. Suppose that $`G`$ is Berge, and contains as an induced subgraph a substantial line graph $`L(H)`$. Then in general, $`G`$ itself can only be basic by being a line graph, so 1.2 would imply that either $`G`$ is a line graph, or it has a decomposition in accordance with 1.2. Proving a result of this kind is our first main goal, but exactly how it goes depends on what we mean by “substantial”. To make the theorem as powerful as possible, we need to weaken what we mean by “substantial” as much as we can; but when $`L(H)`$ gets very small, all sorts of bad things start to happen. One is that the theorem is not true any more. For instance, when $`H=K_{3,3}`$ or $`K_{3,3}e`$, then $`L(H)`$ is not only a line graph but also the complement of a line graph (indeed, it is isomorphic to its own complement). So $`L(H)`$ can live happily inside bigger graphs that are complements of line graphs, without inducing any kind of decomposition. The best we can hope for, when $`L(H)`$ is so small, is therefore to prove that either $`G`$ is a line graph or the complement of a line graph, or has a decomposition of the kind we like. This works for $`L(K_{3,3})`$, but for $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$ the situation is even worse, because this graph is basic in three ways - it is a line graph, the complement of a line graph, and a bicograph. So for Berge graphs that contain $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$, the best we can hope is that either $`G`$ is a line graph or the complement of one or a bicograph, or it has a decomposition. And that turns out to be true, but it also explains why the small cases will be something of a headache, as the reader will see.

Our route through these complications is as follows. If $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, we say that $`L(H)`$ is “degenerate” if there is some cycle $`C`$ in $`K_4`$ of length 4 such that the corresponding cycle of $`H`$ still has length 4 (so the four edges of $`C`$ were not subdivided at all in producing $`H`$), and nondegenerate otherwise. First we assume that $`G`$ contains some $`L(H)`$ where $`H`$ is a subdivision of a 3-connected graph, such that if $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$ then $`L(H)`$ is not degenerate. Then everything works properly — we can show that either $`G`$ is a line graph, or $`G`$ has a decomposition, or $`H=K_{3,3}`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ is a line graph. Next we shall show that if $`G`$ does not contain any such $`L(H)`$, and it does contain some degenerate $`L(H)`$ where $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, then either $`G`$ is a bicograph or it has a decomposition. The third step is, now assume that neither $`G`$ nor its complement contains the line graph of any bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$, and that $`G`$ does contain a long prism (even or odd, though the odd case is much more difficult); then it has a decomposition (except for one graph which is basic).

The goal of the next few sections is therefore to prove the following two theorems (the bicographs and long prisms come later).

###### 5.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and assume some nondegenerate $`L(H)`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$, where $`H`$ is a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$. Then either $`G`$ is a line graph, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. In particular, 1.3.1 holds.

###### 5.2

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and assume it contains an induced subgraph isomorphic to $`L(K_{3,3})`$. Then either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ is a line graph, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

The proof (of both — we prove them together) is roughly as follows. We choose a $`3`$-connected graph $`J`$, as large as possible so that $`G`$ contains $`L(H)`$ for some bipartite subdivision $`H`$ of $`J`$ (and when $`H=K_{3,3}`$, we also assume that passing to the complement will not give us a better choice of $`J`$). Now we investigate how the remainder of $`G`$ can attach onto $`L(H)`$. The edges of $`J`$ correspond to edge-disjoint paths of $`H`$, which in turn become vertex-disjoint paths of $`L(H)`$, which we call “rungs” (we will do the definitions properly later). One thing we find is that the remainder of $`G`$ can contain alternative rungs - paths that could replace one of the rungs in $`L(H)`$ to give a new $`L(H^{})`$, for some other bipartite subdivision $`H^{}`$ of the same graph $`J`$. We find it advantageous to assemble all these alternative rungs in one “strip”, for each edge of $`J`$, and to maximize the union of these strips (being careful that there are no unexpected edges of $`G`$ between strips). Each strip corresponds to an edge of $`J`$, and runs between two sets of vertices (called “potatoes” for now) that correspond to vertices of $`J`$. Let the union of the strips be $`Z`$ say. Again we ask, how does the remainder of $`G`$ attach onto this “generalized line graph” $`Z`$? This turns out to be quite pretty. There are only two kinds of vertices in the remainder of $`G`$, vertices with very few neighbours in $`Z`$, and vertices with a lot of neighbours. For the first kind, all their neighbours lie either in one of the strips, or in one of the potatoes; and we can show that for any connected set of these “minor” vertices, the union of their neighbours in $`Z`$ has the same property (they all lie in one strip or in one potato). For the second kind of vertex, they have so many neighbours in $`Z`$ that all their non-neighbours in any one potato lie inside one strip incident with the potato; and the same is true for the union of the nonneighbours of any anticonnected set of these “major” vertices. In other words, every anticonnected set of these major vertices has a great many common neighbours in $`Z`$, so many that they separate all the strips from one another, and that is where we find skew partitions. If there are no major vertices, then we find that $`G`$ either admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ is a line graph.

First, we assume that $`G`$ contains $`L(H)`$, and we shall study how the remaining vertices of $`G`$ attach to $`L(H)`$. Any such vertex has a set of neighbours in $`V(L(H))`$, that we want to investigate; but this set is more conveniently thought of as a subset of $`E(H)`$, and we begin with some lemmas about subsets of edges of a graph $`H`$. (Our lemmas also apply to the common neighbours of an anticonnected set.) Our goal in this section is to examine how individual vertices attach to $`L(H)`$, and how connected sets of minor vertices attach. In the next section we think about anticonnected sets of major vertices.

In this section and the next few, we have to pay for our convention that “path” means “induced path”, because here we need paths in the conventional sense. So to compound the confusion, let us use a different word for them. A track $`P`$ is a non-null connected graph in which every vertex has degree $`2`$ ; and its length is the number of edges in it. (Its ends and internal vertices are defined in the natural way.) A track in a graph $`H`$ means a subgraph of $`H`$ (not necessarily induced) which is a track. Note that there is a correspondence between the tracks (with at least one edge) in a graph $`H`$ and the paths in $`L(H)`$; the edge-set of a track becomes the vertex-set of a path, and vice versa. And two tracks are vertex-disjoint if and only if the corresponding paths are vertex-disjoint and there is no edge of $`L(H)`$ between them. However, the parity changes; a track in $`H`$ and the corresponding path in $`L(H)`$ have lengths of opposite parity.

A branch-vertex of a graph $`H`$ means a vertex with degree $`3`$; and a branch of $`H`$ means a maximal track $`P`$ in $`H`$ such that no internal vertex of $`P`$ is a branch-vertex. Subdividing an edge $`uv`$ means deleting the edge $`uv`$, adding a new vertex $`w`$, and adding two new edges $`uw`$ and $`wv`$. Starting with a graph $`J`$, the effect of repeatedly subdividing edges is to replace each edge of $`J`$ by a track joining the same pair of vertices, where these tracks are disjoint except for their ends. We call the graph we obtain a subdivision of $`J`$. Note that $`V(J)V(H)`$. Let $`J`$ be a $`3`$-connected graph. (We use the convention that a $`k`$-connected graph must have $`>k`$ vertices.) If $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`J`$ then $`V(J)`$ is the set of branch-vertices of $`H`$, and the branches of $`H`$ are in 1-1 correspondence with the edges of $`J`$. We say $`H`$ is cyclically $`3`$-connected if it is a subdivision of some $`3`$-connected graph $`J`$. (We remind the reader that in this paper, all graphs are simple by definition.)

We need the following lemma:

###### 5.3

Let $`H`$ be bipartite and cyclically 3-connected. Then either $`H=K_{3,3}`$, or $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, or $`H`$ has a subgraph $`H^{}`$ such that $`H^{}`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, and there is no cycle of $`H^{}`$ with vertex set the set of branch-vertices of $`H^{}`$.

Proof. There is a subgraph of $`H`$ which is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, and we may assume that it does not satisfy the theorem. Hence there are tracks $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ ($`=P`$ say) and $`q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n`$ ($`=Q`$ say) of $`H`$, vertex-disjoint, so that $`p_1q_1,p_1q_n,p_mq_1,p_mq_n`$ are edges, and $`m,n3`$ are odd. Suppose every track in $`H`$ between $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ and $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ uses one of the edges $`p_1q_1,p_1q_n,p_mq_1,p_mq_n`$. Then there are no edges between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ except the given four, and for every component $`F`$ of $`H(V(P)V(Q))`$, the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(P)V(Q)`$ is a subset of one of $`V(P),V(Q)`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected, it follows that $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`K_4`$ and the theorem holds. So we may assume that there is a track $`R`$ of $`H`$, say $`r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_t`$, from $`V(P)`$ to $`V(Q)`$, not using any of $`p_1q_1,p_1q_n,p_mq_1,p_mq_n`$. We may assume that $`r_1\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m1}\}`$, $`r_t\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$, and none of $`r_2,\mathrm{},r_{t1}`$ belong to $`V(P)V(Q)`$. The subgraph $`H^{}`$ formed by the edges $`E(P)E(Q)E(R)\{p_1q_n,p_mq_1,p_mq_n\}`$ (and the vertices of $`H`$ incident with them) is a subdivision of $`K_4`$, and we may assume it does not satisfy the theorem. There is therefore a cycle of $`H^{}`$ with vertex set $`\{r_1,r_t,p_m,q_n\}`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite and $`p_mq_n`$ is an edge, it follows that $`t=2`$. Hence not both $`r_1=p_1`$ and $`r_2=q_1`$, and so $`r_1=p_{m1}`$ and $`r_2=q_{n1}`$. By the same argument with $`p_1,p_m`$ exchanged, it follows that $`r_1=p_2`$, and so $`m=3`$, and similarly $`n=3`$. Hence there is a subgraph $`J`$ of $`H`$ isomorphic to $`K_{3,3}`$.

It is helpful now to change the notation. Let $`J`$ have vertex set $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$, where $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$ are adjacent to $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$. Suppose that there is a component $`F`$ of $`HV(J)`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected, at least two vertices of $`J`$ are attachments of $`F`$. If say $`a_1,b_1`$ are attachments, choose a track $`P`$ between $`a_1,b_1`$ with interior in $`F`$; then the union of $`P`$ and $`J\{a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}`$ satisfies the theorem. If say $`a_1,a_2`$ are attachments of $`F`$, choose a track $`P`$ between $`a_1,a_2`$ with interior in $`F`$; then the union of $`P`$ and $`J\{a_1b_1,a_2b_3\}`$ satisfies the theorem. So we may assume there is no such $`F`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite, it follows that $`H=J=K_{3,3}`$ , and so the theorem holds. This proves 5.3.

This lemma can be used to reformulate 5.2 in the following, perhaps more informative, way:

###### 5.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and assume it contains $`L(K_{3,3})`$ as an induced subgraph. Then either:

* $`G=L(K_{3,3})`$, or
* one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ contains some nondegenerate $`L(H)`$ as an induced subgraph, where $`H`$ is a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$, or
* one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

In particular, 1.3.2 holds.

Proof of 5.4, assuming 5.2.
From 5.2 we may assume that $`G`$ is a line graph, $`G=L(H)`$ say. If $`H`$ is not cyclically 3-connected, then $`G=L(H)`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition and we are done, so we may assume that $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected. It follows easily that $`H`$ is bipartite, and we may assume that $`L(H^{})`$ is degenerate for every subgraph $`H^{}`$ of $`H`$ isomorphic to a subdivision of $`K_4`$. By 5.3, it follows that $`H=K_{3,3}`$, and so $`G=L(K_{3,3})`$. This proves 5.4.

We observe:

###### 5.5

Let $`H`$ be cyclically 3-connected, and let $`C,D`$ be subgraphs with $`CD=H`$, $`|V(CD)|2`$, and $`V(C),V(D)V(H)`$. Then one of $`C,D`$ is contained in a branch of $`H`$.

The proof is clear.

###### 5.6

Let $`c_1,c_2`$ be nonadjacent vertices of a graph $`H`$, so that $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ is connected. For $`i=1,2`$, let the edges incident with $`c_i`$ be partitioned into two sets $`A_i,B_i`$, where $`A_1,A_2`$ are both nonempty and at least one of $`B_1,B_2`$ is nonempty. Assume that for every edge $`uvA_1A_2`$, $`H\{u,v\}`$ is connected, and that no vertex of $`V(H)`$ is incident with all edges in $`A_1A_2`$. Then one of the following holds:

1. there is a track in $`H`$ with first edge in $`A_1`$, second edge in $`B_1`$ (and hence second vertex $`c_1`$), last vertex $`c_2`$ and last edge in $`A_2`$, or
2. there is a track in $`H`$ with first edge in $`A_2`$, second edge in $`B_2`$ (and hence second vertex $`c_2`$), last vertex $`c_1`$ and last edge in $`A_1`$.

Proof. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`X_i`$ be the set of ends (different from $`c_i`$) of edges in $`A_i`$, and define $`Y_i`$ similarly for $`B_i`$. So by hypothesis, $`X_1,X_2`$ are nonempty, $`|X_1X_2|2`$, and we may assume $`Y_1`$ is nonempty. Choose $`x_1X_1`$ so that $`X_2\{x_1\}`$ (this is possible since $`|X_1X_2|2`$). Both $`Y_1`$ and $`X_2`$ meet the connected graph $`H\{c_1,x_1\}`$, and so there is a track in $`H\{c_1,x_1\}`$ from $`Y_1`$ to $`X_2Y_2`$, say $`P`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ say. We may assume that $`p_1Y_1`$, and no other $`p_i`$ is in $`Y_1`$; and $`p_nX_2Y_2`$, and no other $`p_i`$ is in $`X_2Y_2`$. In particular it follows that $`c_2V(P)`$. Since $`x_1V(P)`$ we may assume that $`p_nX_2`$ (for otherwise the theorem holds), so $`p_nY_2`$. If any vertex of $`X_1`$ is in $`P`$ then again the theorem holds (since $`X_2`$ is nonempty and none of its vertices are in $`P`$), so we may assume that $`P`$ is disjoint from $`X_1X_2`$. Since $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ is connected, there is a minimal track $`Q`$ in $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ from $`X_1X_2`$ to $`V(P)`$, and we may assume that only its first vertex ($`q`$ say) is in $`X_1X_2`$. If $`qX_1X_2`$, choose $`xX_2`$; if $`qX_2X_1`$ choose $`xX_1`$; and if $`qX_1X_2`$ choose $`xX_1X_2`$ different from $`q`$. Thus we may assume that $`qX_1`$ and there exists $`xX_2`$ different from $`q`$ and hence not in $`Q`$. So $`PQ`$ contains a path from $`q`$ to $`B_2`$ not containing $`x`$, and hence the theorem holds. This proves 5.6.

If $`v`$ is a vertex of $`H`$, the set of edges of $`H`$ incident with $`v`$ is denoted by $`\delta (v)`$ or $`\delta _H(v)`$. Let $`H`$ be bipartite and cyclically $`3`$-connected, and let $`X`$ be some set. We say that $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$ if for every branch-vertex $`v`$ of $`H`$, at most one edge of $`\delta _H(v)`$ is not in $`X`$ (or equivalently, for every $`K_3`$ subgraph of $`L(H)`$, at least two of its vertices are in $`X`$). When $`H`$ is connected and bipartite, we speak of vertices having the same or different biparity depending whether every track between them is even or odd respectively. Two edges of $`G`$ are disjoint if they have no end in common.

###### 5.7

Let $`H`$ be bipartite and cyclically $`3`$-connected. Let $`XE(H)`$, satisfying:
(a) for every track $`P`$ of $`H`$ of length $`4`$ and even, with both end-edges in $`X`$ and with no internal edge in $`X`$, every edge in $`X`$ has an end in the interior of $`P`$
(b) there do not exist three tracks of $`H`$ with an end ($`b`$ say) in common and otherwise vertex-disjoint, such that each contains an edge in $`X`$, and at least two of the three edges of the tracks incident with $`b`$ do not belong to $`X`$.
Then either:

1. $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, or
2. there is a branch $`B`$ of $`H`$ so that every edge in $`X`$ has an end in $`B`$, or
3. $`|X|=2`$ and there is a track $`P`$ in $`H`$ of even length $`4`$ with both end-edges in $`X`$ and no internal edge in $`X`$, such that there is a branch-vertex of $`H`$ in $`P`$ not incident with either end-edge of $`P`$, or
4. $`|X|=4`$, and the edges in $`X`$ form a $`4`$-cycle whose four vertices are all branch-vertices, or
5. there are two vertices $`c_1,c_2`$ of $`H`$, of different biparity and not in the same branch of $`H`$, so that $`X=\delta (c_1)\delta (c_2)`$.

Proof.
(1) There do not exist a connected subgraph $`T`$ of $`HX`$ and three mutually disjoint edges $`x_1,x_2,x_3X`$ so that each $`x_i`$ has at least one end in $`T`$.
For suppose such $`T,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ exist. We may assume $`T`$ is a maximal connected subgraph of $`HX`$. Let $`x_i`$ have ends $`a_i,b_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$, where $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$ have the same biparity. Make a graph $`K`$ with vertex set $`a_1,a_2,a_3,b_1,b_2,b_3`$, where we say two vertices of $`K`$ are adjacent if there is a track in $`T`$ joining them not using any other vertex of $`K`$. Since $`T`$ is connected and meets all of $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ it follows that there is a component of $`K`$ containing an end of each of these three edges. Now if $`a_1a_2`$ is an edge of $`K`$, then the corresponding track in $`T`$ is even, and hypothesis (a) is contradicted. So the only possible edges in $`K`$ join some $`a_i`$ to some $`b_j`$. Also, if say $`a_3`$ is adjacent in $`K`$ to both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, then hypothesis (b) is contradicted. Since there is a component of $`K`$ containing an end of each of $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$, we may assume that $`a_1b_3,b_2a_3,a_3b_3E(K)`$, and the only other possible edges of $`K`$ are $`a_1b_1,a_2b_2,a_2b_1`$. In particular, there are no more edges of $`K`$ incident with $`a_3`$ or $`b_3`$. Let the tracks in $`T`$ corresponding to $`a_1b_3,b_2a_3,a_3b_3E(K)`$ be $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ respectively. Since $`P_3`$ joins the adjacent vertices $`a_3,b_3`$ and does not use the edge $`x_3`$, it follows that $`P_3`$ has nonempty interior. Choose a maximal connected subgraph $`S`$ of $`T`$ including the interior of $`P_3`$ and not containing either of $`a_3,b_3`$. Since there are no more edges of $`K`$ incident with $`a_3`$ or $`b_3`$, it follows that none of $`a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2`$ is in $`V(S)`$, and therefore $`S`$ is vertex-disjoint from $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ as well. Consequently the only edges of $`T`$ between $`V(S)\{a_3,b_3\}`$ and the remainder of $`H`$ are incident with $`a_3`$ or $`b_3`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically $`3`$-connected and $`a_3,b_3`$ are adjacent, it follows that $`H\{a_3,b_3\}`$ is connected, and therefore there is an edge $`sv`$ of $`H`$ such that $`sV(S)`$ and $`vV(H)(V(S)\{a_3,b_3\})`$. Since $`T`$ is maximal, it follows that $`svX`$; and from the symmetry we may assume $`v\{a_1,b_1\}`$. Choose a minimal track in $`S`$ between $`s`$ and the interior of $`P_3`$; then it can be extended via a subpath of $`P_3`$ and via $`sv`$ to become a track $`P_4`$ in $`H`$, of length $`2`$, from $`v`$ to $`b_3`$, using none of $`a_1,b_1,a_3`$, and with only its first edge in $`X`$. But then the tracks $`b_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_3`$, $`P_4`$, and the one-edge track made by $`x_3`$, violate hypothesis (b). This proves (1).
(2) We may assume that $`|X|3`$.
For if $`|X|1`$ then statement 2 of the theorem holds; suppose $`|X|=2`$, and $`X=\{a_1b_1,a_2b_2\}`$ say, where $`a_1,a_2`$ have the same biparity. If some branch of $`H`$ meets both these edges then statement 2 of the theorem holds, so we may assume not, and in particular these four vertices are distinct. Since $`H`$ is cyclically $`3`$-connected it follows from 5.5 that $`H\{b_1,b_2\}`$ is connected, so there is a track $`P`$ of $`H`$ between $`b_1,b_2`$, with even length $`4`$, with first edge $`b_1a_1`$ and last edge $`a_2b_2`$. Since $`a_1,a_2`$ do not belong to the same branch of $`H`$, there is a branch-vertex of $`H`$ in $`P`$ not incident with either end-edge of $`P`$; and so statement 3 of the theorem holds. This proves (2).
Now we may assume that $`X`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$, and so there is a branch-vertex of $`H`$ incident with $`2`$ edges not in $`X`$. Hence there is a connected subgraph $`A`$ of $`HX`$, containing a branch-vertex and at least two edges incident with it. Choose such a subgraph $`A`$ maximal. It follows that $`A`$ is not contained in any branch of $`H`$. By (1), there is no 3-edge matching among the edges in $`X`$ that meet $`A`$; and since this set of edges makes a bipartite subgraph, it follows from König’s theorem that there are two vertices $`c_1,c_2`$ so that every edge in $`X`$ with an end in $`A`$ is incident with one of $`c_1,c_2`$.
(3) We may assume that every edge in $`X`$ is incident with one of $`c_1,c_2`$.
For suppose not; then there is an edge in $`X`$ vertex-disjoint from $`V(A)\{c_1,c_2\}`$. Let $`B=HV(A)`$. From the maximality of $`A`$, every edge of $`H`$ between $`V(A)`$ and $`V(B)`$ belongs to $`X`$ and therefore is incident with one of $`c_1,c_2`$, and so there are two subgraphs $`C,D`$ of $`H`$ with $`V(C)=V(A)\{c_1,c_2\}`$, $`CD=H`$, $`V(CD)=\{c_1,c_2\}`$, $`AC`$ and $`BD`$. In particular, $`V(C),V(D)V(G)`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically $`3`$-connected it follows from 5.5 that one of $`C`$,$`D`$ is contained in a branch of $`H`$. Now $`C`$ is not, because it contains $`A`$ (and we already saw that $`A`$ is not contained in a branch); so $`D`$ is contained in a branch. In particular, this branch contains $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, and also meets all edges in $`X`$ with no end in $`V(A)`$, and therefore meets all edges in $`X`$; but then statement 2 of the theorem holds. This proves (3).

We may assume that $`c_1,c_2`$ do not belong to the same branch, for otherwise statement 2 of the theorem holds; and consequently $`c_1,c_2`$ are nonadjacent, and $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ is connected, by 5.5.

Assume that $`c_1,c_2`$ have the same biparity. Since $`|X|3`$, we may assume there are at least two edges in $`X`$ incident with $`c_1`$, say $`c_1a_1,c_1a_2`$. If there is an edge $`c_2a_3`$ incident with $`c_2`$ where $`a_3a_1,a_2`$, take a minimal track in $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ between $`a_3`$ and one of $`a_1,a_2`$; it violates hypothesis (a) of the theorem. So the only possible edges in $`X`$ incident with $`c_2`$ are $`c_2a_1`$ and $`c_2a_2`$. If both are present, then by exchanging $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ it follows that there are no more edges incident with $`c_1`$, and so either statement 2 or 4 of the theorem holds. If exactly one is present, say $`c_2a_1`$, then the branch of $`H`$ containing $`c_1a_1`$ satisfies statment 2 of the theorem. If none are present, then any branch containing $`c_1`$ satisfies statement 2. This completes the proof if $`c_1,c_2`$ have the same biparity.

Now assume that $`c_1,c_2`$ have different biparity. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`A_i=\delta (c_i)X`$, and let $`B_i=\delta (c_i)A_i`$. We may assume that $`A_1,A_2`$ are nonempty. Since $`c_1,c_2`$ have different biparity, no vertex is incident with all the edges in $`A_1A_2`$. If both $`B_1,B_2`$ are empty, then statement 5 of the theorem holds, so we may assume at least one of them is nonempty. By 5.6, we may assume there is a track in $`H`$ with first edge in $`A_1`$, second edge in $`B_1`$ (and hence second vertex $`c_1`$), last vertex $`c_2`$ and last edge in $`A_2`$. By choosing such a track as short as possible, it follows that only one edge in $`A_2`$ meets its interior. By hypothesis (a), all edges in $`X`$ meet its interior, and hence in particular $`|A_2|=1`$. But then we can replace $`c_2`$ by the other end of the edge in $`A_2`$, and will be in the “same biparity” case that we have already done. This proves 5.7.

Now we apply what we just proved to the neighbours of a single vertex. If $`G`$,$`J`$ are graphs, we say that $`J`$ appears in $`G`$ if there is a bipartite subdivision $`H`$ of $`J`$ so that $`L(H)`$ is isomorphic to an induced subgraph of $`G`$. We call $`L(H)`$ an appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$. Note that if $`L(H)`$ is isomorphic to some induced subgraph $`K`$ of $`G`$, there is another subdivision $`H^{}`$ isomorphic to $`H`$, made from $`H`$ by replacing each edge of $`H`$ by the corresponding vertex of $`K`$; and now $`L(H^{})=K`$ (rather than just being isomorphic to it). So whenever it is convenient we shall assume that the isomorphism between $`L(H)`$ and $`K`$ is just equality, without further explanation. Note in particular that $`E(H)=V(K)`$, and so some vertices of $`G`$ are edges of $`H`$.

When $`J=K_4`$, we already defined what we mean by a degenerate appearance of $`J`$. When $`JK_4`$, let us say that an appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$ is degenerate if $`J=H=K_{3,3}`$, and otherwise it is nondegenerate. So all appearances of any graph $`JK_4,K_{3,3}`$ are nondegenerate. If $`J`$ is 3-connected, we say a graph $`J^{}`$ is a $`J`$-enlargement if $`J^{}`$ is 3-connected, and has a proper subgraph which is isomorphic to a subdivision of $`J`$.

We remind the reader that we are currently trying to prove two statements, 5.1 and 5.2. To do so we shall prove the following:

###### 5.8

Let $`G`$ be Berge. Let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph, such that either:

* there is a nondegenerate appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$, and there is no $`J`$-enlargement with a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, or
* $`J=K_{3,3}`$, there is an appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$, and no $`J`$-enlargement appears in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$.

Then either $`G=L(H)`$, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition.

The proof of this will take several sections; but let us see now that 5.8 implies 5.1 and 5.2.
Proof of 5.1, assuming 5.8.

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and assume there is a nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Choose a 3-connected graph $`J`$ maximal (under $`J`$-enlargement) so that there is a nondegenerate appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$; then the hypotheses of 5.8 are satisfied, and the claim follows from 5.8. This proves 5.1.

Proof of 5.2, assuming 5.8.

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and assume it contains an induced subgraph isomorphic to $`L(K_{3,3})`$. We may therefore choose a 3-connected graph $`J`$, either equal to $`K_{3,3}`$ or a $`K_{3,3}`$-enlargement, maximal (in the sense of $`J`$-enlargement) so that there is an appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$. If there is a nondegenerate appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, then the hypotheses of 5.8 hold, and the claim follows from 5.8. So we may assume that every appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$ is degenerate, and in particular $`J=K_{3,3}`$. If there is a $`J`$-enlargement which appears in $`\overline{G}`$, choose it maximal; then the claim follows by applying 5.8 to $`\overline{G}`$. So we may assume that there is no $`J`$-enlargement that appears in $`\overline{G}`$. But then again the claim follows from 5.8. This proves 5.2.

###### 5.9

Let $`G`$ be Berge. Let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph, and let $`L(H)`$ be an appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$. Let $`yV(G)V(L(H))`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of vertices of $`L(H)`$ that are adjacent to $`y`$ in $`G`$. Then either:

1. $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, or
2. there is a branch-vertex $`v`$ of $`H`$ with $`X\delta _H(v)`$, or
3. there is a branch $`B`$ of $`H`$ with $`XE(B)`$, or
4. there is a branch $`B`$ of $`H`$ with ends $`b_1,b_2`$ say, so that $`XE(B)=\delta _H(b_1)E(B)`$, or
5. there is a branch $`B`$ of $`H`$ of odd length with ends $`b_1,b_2`$ say, so that $`XE(B)=(\delta _H(b_1)\delta _H(b_2))E(B)`$, or
6. there are two vertices $`c_1,c_2`$ of $`H`$, of different biparity and not in the same branch of $`H`$, so that $`X=\delta (c_1)\delta (c_2)`$.

In particular, either statements 1 or 6 hold, or there are at most two branch-vertices of $`H`$ incident with more than one edge in $`X`$; and exactly two only if statement 5 holds.

Proof.

The second assertion (the final sentence) follows from the first, because if statements 2,3 or 4 hold then there is at most one branch-vertex incident with more than one edge in $`X`$; while if $`B,b_1,b_2`$ are as in statement 5, then since $`B`$ is odd, it follows that $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ have no common neighbour, and so no branch-vertex different from $`b_1,b_2`$ is incident with more than one edge in $`X`$. So it remains to prove the first assertion.
(1) Every track of $`H`$ with both end-edges in $`X`$ and no internal edge in $`X`$ has length odd or 2.
For since $`X`$ is the set of neighbours in $`L(H)`$ of a single vertex, it follows that every path in $`L(H)`$ with both ends in $`X`$ and with no interior vertex in $`X`$ has length even or 1, and this proves (1).

In particular, hypothesis (a) of 5.7 is satisfied, and so is hypothesis (b), by 2.4. Hence one of statements 1-5 of 5.7 applies. If 5.7.1 applies then statement 1 of the theorem holds, and 5.7.3 cannot apply, by (1). If 5.7.4 applies, let the corresponding 4-cycle have vertices $`b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4`$ in order; then there is a track $`T`$ between $`b_1,b_3`$ not using $`b_2,b_4`$, since $`b_1,b_3`$ are branch-vertices, and it is even since $`b_1,b_3`$ have the same biparity, and then the track $`b_2\text{-}b_1\text{-}T\text{-}b_3\text{-}b_4`$ contradicts (1). So 5.7.4 cannot apply. If 5.7.5 holds then statement 6 of the theorem holds. So we may assume that 5.7.2 applies.

Let $`C`$ be a branch of $`H`$ meeting all the edges in $`X`$, and let $`c_1,c_2`$ be the ends of $`C`$. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`A_i`$ be the set of edges in $`\delta (c_i)`$ that are in $`X`$ and not in $`C`$; and let $`B_i`$ be the set of edges in $`\delta (c_i)`$ that are not in $`X`$ and not in $`C`$. If one of $`A_1,B_1`$ is empty and also $`A_2`$ is empty, then statement 3 or 4 of the theorem holds as required. Suppose that $`B_1,B_2`$ are both empty. Choose $`a_1A_1`$ and $`a_2A_2`$, disjoint, and let $`T`$ be a track of $`H`$ from $`c_1`$ to $`c_2`$ with end-edges $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. Then no internal edge of $`T`$ is in $`X`$, and its end-edges are in $`X`$, and so it cannot be even by (1); therefore $`c_1`$,$`c_2`$ have different biparity, and so $`C`$ is odd. But then statement 5 of the theorem holds. So we may assume that $`A_1,B_1`$ are both nonempty.
(2) We may assume $`A_2`$ is nonempty.
For assume $`A_2`$ is empty. If $`c_1`$ meets every edge in $`X`$ then statement 2 of the theorem holds, so we may assume not; and hence some edge of $`Cc_1`$ is in $`X`$. Let $`P`$ be a minimal subtrack of $`C`$ containing $`c_2`$ and some edge in $`X`$. Choose an edge $`c_1a_1A_1`$. Since $`H\{c_1,a_1\}`$ is connected, there is a track $`Q`$ in this graph starting from $`b_1`$ say to $`c_2`$, where $`b_1c_1B_1`$; and we can extend it to a track from $`a_1`$ to $`c_2`$ with second vertex $`c_1`$, first edge in $`A_1`$ and second edge in $`B_1`$. By combining the latter with $`P`$ we deduce from (1) that the lengths of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ have opposite parity. On the other hand, there is a track $`R`$ in $`Hc_1`$ between $`a_1`$ and $`c_2`$; and by extending it via $`a_1c_1`$, combining it with $`P`$ and applying (1) we deduce that the lengths of $`R`$ and $`P`$ have the same parity. But since $`H`$ is bipartite, the lengths of $`Q`$ and $`R`$ have the same parity, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) $`C`$ has even length.
For assume it is odd, and so $`c_1,c_2`$ have different biparity. Consequently no vertex is incident with all the edges in $`A_1A_2`$, and hence we can apply 5.6 to the graph $`H^{}`$ obtained from $`H`$ by deleting the internal vertices and edges of $`C`$. We deduce that (without loss of generality) there is a track in $`H^{}`$ with first edge in $`A_1`$, second edge in $`B_1`$ (and hence second vertex $`c_1`$), last vertex $`c_2`$ and last edge in $`A_2`$. But since $`c_1,c_2`$ have different biparity, this track has even length $`4`$, contrary to (1). This proves (3).

Assume next that for $`i=1,2`$ there are edges $`c_ia_iA_i`$ disjoint from each other. There is a track in $`H\{c_1,c_2\}`$ between $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, and it is even since $`c_1,c_2`$ have the same biparity, and it has length $`2`$. By extending it via the edges $`c_1a_1`$ and $`c_2a_2`$ we obtain a track violating (1). So there do not exist such edges. Hence there is a vertex $`aV(H)`$ so that $`A_i=\{c_ia\}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Now there is only one branch of $`H`$ incident with $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, since $`J`$ is simple, so $`a`$ is not in the interior of a branch, and so it is a branch-vertex. Choose a branch-vertex $`b`$ of $`H`$ different from $`c_1,c_2,a`$, and choose three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ between $`b`$ and $`c_1,c_2,a`$ respectively, pairwise disjoint except for $`b`$. So $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ have lengths of the same parity, and $`P_3`$ has length of different parity. We may assume that there is an edge in $`X`$ not incident with $`a`$, for otherwise statement 2 of the theorem holds, so for $`i=1,2`$ there is a minimal subtrack $`Q_i`$ of $`C`$ containing $`c_i`$ and an edge in $`X`$. If $`Q_1=C`$ then (since $`C`$ has even length) $`P_1P_2`$ is the interior of an even track with end-edges in $`X`$ and no internal edges in $`X`$, contrary to (1). So $`c_2`$ is not a vertex of $`Q_1`$, and similarly $`c_1`$ is not in $`Q_2`$. From the track $`Q_1\text{-}c_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b\text{-}P_2\text{-}c_2\text{-}a`$ and (1) it follows that $`Q_1`$ is even; and from the track $`Q_1\text{-}c_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b\text{-}P_3\text{-}a\text{-}c_2`$ and (1) it follows that $`Q_1`$ is odd, a contradiction. This proves 5.9.

We recall that $`H`$ is a subdivision of $`J`$, and $`L(H)`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$. For each vertex $`v`$ of $`J`$, we denote the set of edges of $`H`$ incident with $`v`$ by $`N_v`$, and for each edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$, we denote the set of edges of the branch of $`H`$ between $`u`$ and $`v`$ by $`R_{uv}`$. So each $`N_v`$ and each $`R_{uv}`$ is a subset of $`V(L(H))`$. We say a subset $`X`$ of $`V(L(H))`$ is local (with respect to $`L(H)`$) if either $`XN_v`$ for some vertex $`v`$ of $`J`$, or $`XR_{uv}`$ for some edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$. In general, if $`K`$ is an induced subgraph of $`G`$, and $`FV(G)`$ is a connected set disjoint from $`V(K)`$, a vertex in $`V(K)`$ is an attachment of $`F`$ if it has a neighbour in $`F`$.

###### 5.10

Let $`G`$ be Berge. Let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph, let $`L(H)`$ be an appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, and let $`F`$ be a connected set of vertices, disjoint from $`V(L(H))`$, such that the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$ is not local. Assume that for every $`vF`$ the set of neighbours of $`v`$ in $`L(H)`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$. Then there is a path $`P`$ of $`G`$ with $`V(P)F`$ and with ends $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, such that either:

1. there are vertices $`c_1,c_2`$ of $`H`$, not in the same branch of $`H`$, so that for $`i=1,2`$ $`p_i`$ is complete in $`G`$ to $`\delta _H(c_i)`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(L(H))`$, or
2. there is an edge $`b_1b_2`$ of $`J`$ (for $`i=1,2`$, $`r_i`$ denotes the unique vertex in $`N_{b_i}R_{b_1b_2}`$) such that one of the following holds:

1. $`p_1`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_1}r_1`$, and $`p_2`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{b_1b_2}r_1`$, and every edge from $`V(P)`$ to $`V(L(H))r_1`$ is either from $`p_1`$ to $`N_{b_1}r_1`$, or from $`p_2`$ to $`R_{b_1b_2}r_1`$, or
    2. for $`i=1,2`$, $`p_i`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_i}r_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(L(H))`$ except possibly $`p_1r_1,p_2r_2`$, and $`P`$ has the same parity as $`R_{b_1b_2}`$, or
    3. $`p_1=p_2`$, and $`p_1`$ is adjacent to all vertices in $`(N_{b_1}N_{b_2})\{r_1,r_2\}`$, and all neighbours of $`p_1`$ in $`V(L(H))`$ belong to $`N_{b_1}N_{b_2}R_{b_1b_2}`$, and $`R_{b_1b_2}`$ is even, or
    4. $`r_1=r_2`$, and for $`i=1,2`$, $`p_i`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_i}r_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(L(H))r_1`$, and $`P`$ is even.

Proof. We may assume $`F`$ is minimal so that its set of attachments is not local. Let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$. Suppose first that $`|F|`$ = 1, $`F`$ = $`\{y\}`$ say. Apply 5.9 to $`y`$. Now 5.9.1 is false since by hypothesis $`X`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$, and 5.9.2, and 5.9.3 are false since $`X`$ is not local. So one of 5.9.4-6 holds, and the claim follows. Consequently we may assume that $`|F|2`$.
(1) There exist two attachments $`x_1`$,$`x_2`$ of $`F`$ so that $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ is not local.
For $`XE(H)`$. If there exists $`x_1X`$ not incident in $`H`$ with a branch-vertex, and in some branch $`B`$, choose any $`x_2X`$ not in $`B`$, then $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ is not local. So we may assume that every edge in $`X`$ is incident with a branch-vertex of $`H`$. Choose $`x_1X`$, in some branch $`B_1`$ of $`H`$, and incident with a branch-vertex $`b_1`$. There exists $`x_2X`$ not incident with $`b_1`$, and we may assume that $`x_2E(B_1)`$, for otherwise $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ is not local. Hence $`x_2`$ is incident with the other end $`b_2`$ say of $`B_1`$. There exists $`x_3X`$ not belonging to $`E(B)`$, and it cannot share an end both with $`x_1`$ and with $`x_2`$, so we may assume $`x_3`$ is not incident with $`b_1`$. But then $`\{x_1,x_3\}`$ is not local, as required. This proves (1).

From the minimality of $`F`$, it follows that $`F`$ is minimal such that $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are both attachments of $`F`$, and so (since $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are nonadjacent), $`F`$ is the interior of a path with vertices $`x_1,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,x_2`$ in order. Let $`X_1`$ be the set of attachments in $`L(H)`$ of $`Fp_n`$, and let $`X_2`$ be the attachments of $`Fp_1`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are both local.
(2) If there is an edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$ so that $`X_1N_u`$ and $`X_2R_{uv}`$ then the theorem holds.
For let the ends of $`R_{uv}`$ be $`r_1,r_2`$ where $`r_1N_u`$. Since $`X`$ is not local, it follows that $`p_1`$ has a neighbour in $`N_ur_1`$ and $`p_n`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{uv}r_1`$. If $`p_1`$ is adjacent to every vertex in $`N_ur_1`$ then statement 2.a of the theorem holds, so we may assume $`p_1`$ has a neighbour $`s_1`$ and a nonneighbour $`s_2`$ in $`N_ur_1`$. Let $`Q`$ be the path between $`r_2`$ and $`s_1`$ with interior in $`FR_{uv}r_1`$. Choose $`wV(J)`$ so that $`s_1R_{uw}`$. Now $`H`$ is a subdivision of a $`3`$-connected graph, so if we delete all edges of $`H`$ incident with $`u`$ except $`s_1`$, the graph we produce is still connected. Consequently there is a track of $`H`$ from $`u`$ to $`v`$ with first edge $`s_1`$; and hence there is a path $`S_1`$ of $`L(H)`$ from $`s_1`$ to $`r_2`$, vertex-disjoint from $`R_{uv}N_u`$ except for its ends. Indeed, if we delete from $`H`$ both the vertex $`w`$ and all edges incident with $`u`$ except $`s_2`$, the graph remains connected; so there is a path $`S_2`$ of $`L(H)`$ between $`s_2`$ and $`r_2`$, vertex-disjoint from $`R_{uv}N_uR_{uw}N_w`$ except for its ends. Now $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have the same parity since $`H`$ is bipartite. Yet $`S_1`$ can be completed via $`r_2\text{-}Q\text{-}s_1`$ and $`S_2`$ can be completed via $`r_2\text{-}Q\text{-}s_1\text{-}s_2`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) If there are nonadjacent vertices $`v_1,v_2V(J)`$ so that $`X_iN_{v_i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$, then the theorem holds.
Let $`A_1`$ be the set of vertices in $`N_{v_1}`$ adjacent to $`p_1`$, and $`B_1=N_{v_1}A_1`$; and let $`A_2`$ be the set of vertices in $`N_{v_2}`$ adjacent to $`p_n`$, and $`B_2=N_{v_2}A_2`$. So $`X=A_1A_2`$. If both $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are empty then statement 1 of the theorem holds, so we may assume that at least one of $`B_1`$,$`B_2`$ is nonempty. Certainly $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are both nonempty, so there is a track in $`H`$ from $`v_1`$ to $`v_2`$ with end-edges in $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ respectively. Hence there is a path $`S_1`$ in $`L(H)`$ from $`A_1`$ to $`A_2`$, vertex-disjoint from $`N_{v_1}N_{v_2}`$ except for its ends. Since $`X=A_1A_2`$ is not local, there is no $`wV(J)`$ with $`A_1A_2N_w`$. Hence we can apply 5.6, and we deduce (possibly after exchanging $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$) that there is a path $`S_2`$ in $`L(H)`$ with first vertex in $`A_1`$, second vertex in $`B_1`$, last vertex in $`A_2`$, and otherwise disjoint from $`N_{v_1}N_{v_2}`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have opposite parity; but they can both be completed via $`F`$, a contradiction. This proves (3).
(4) If there are adjacent vertices $`v_1,v_2V(J)`$ so that $`X_iN_{v_i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$, then the theorem holds.
For $`i=1,2`$ let $`r_i`$ be the end of $`R_{v_1v_2}`$ in $`N_{v_i}`$. Let $`A_1`$ be the set of vertices in $`N_{v_1}r_1`$ adjacent to $`p_1`$, and $`B_1=N_{v_1}(A_1r_1)`$; and define $`A_2,B_2`$ similarly. Then $`XA_1A_2\{r_1,r_2\}`$. By (2) we may assume that $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are both nonempty. Suppose that both $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are empty. Then there is a cycle in $`J`$ of length $`4`$ using the edge $`v_1v_2`$, and so there is a path in $`L(H)`$ of length $`2`$ from $`A_1`$ to $`A_2`$ with no internal vertex in $`N_{v_1}V(R_{v_1v_2})N_{v_2}`$. The union of this path with $`R_{v_1v_2}`$ induces a hole, and so does its union with $`F`$, and therefore these two paths have lengths of the same parity. Consequently either statement 2.b or 2.d of the theorem holds. So we may assume that at least one of $`B_1,B_2`$ is nonempty. There is a path $`S_1`$ from $`A_1`$ to $`A_2`$ with no vertex in $`N_{v_1}N_{v_2}R_{v_1v_2}`$ except for its ends. Suppose that there is no vertex $`wV(J)`$ with $`A_1A_2N_w`$. Then we can apply 5.6 to the graph obtained from $`H`$ by deleting the edges and internal vertices of the branch between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. We deduce (possibly after exchanging $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$) that there is a path $`S_2`$ of $`L(H)`$ with first vertex in $`A_1`$, second vertex in $`B_1`$, last vertex in $`A_2`$, and otherwise disjoint from $`N_{v_1}N_{v_2}R_{v_1v_2}`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have opposite parity; but they can both be completed via $`F`$, a contradiction. Consequently there is a vertex $`wV(J)`$ with $`A_1A_2N_w`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite, it follows that $`R_{v_1v_2}`$ has odd length, and in particular $`r_1r_2`$. Since $`|N_{v_i}N_w|1`$ (since $`J`$ is simple) it follows that $`|A_i|=1`$, $`A_i=\{a_i\}`$ say, for $`i=1,2`$. Since $`X`$ is not local it is not a subset of $`N_w`$ and so there is a vertex of $`R_{v_1v_2}`$ in $`X`$. Since $`X_iN_{v_i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$, no internal vertex of $`R_{v_1v_2}`$ is in $`X`$, so we may assume that $`r_1X`$. Since $`r_1N_{v_2}`$ it follows that $`r_1X_2`$, and hence $`p_1`$ is the only vertex in $`F`$ adjacent to $`r_1`$. Now the hole $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}p_1`$ is even, and so $`n`$ is even. If we delete the vertex $`v_2`$ and the edge $`a_1`$ from $`H`$, what remains is still connected, and so contains a track from $`w`$ to $`v_1`$. Hence there is a path $`T`$ in $`L(H)`$ from some $`a_3N(w)`$ to $`r_1`$, disjoint from $`N_{v_2}a_1`$. But $`T`$ can be completed to a hole via $`r_1\text{-}R_{v_1v_2}\text{-}r_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_3`$ and via $`r_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_3`$, and these two completions have different parity, a contradiction. This proves (4).
(5) If $`X_1X_2`$ is nonempty, and in particular if one of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$ has a neighbour in $`L(H)`$, then the theorem holds.
For any neighbour in $`L(H)`$ of one of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$ belongs to $`X_1X_2`$, so assume $`xX_1X_2`$. Then $`xR_{v_1v_2}`$ for a unique edge $`v_1v_2`$ of $`J`$, and $`xN_v`$ for at most two $`vV(J)`$, namely $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. Since both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are local, each is a subset of one of $`N_{v_1},N_{v_2},R_{v_1v_2}`$, and they are not both subsets of the same one. So we may assume that $`X_1N_{v_1}`$. Hence either $`X_2N_{v_2}`$ or $`X_2R_{v_1v_2}`$, and therefore the theorem holds by (5) or (2). This proves (5).
(6) If there is a vertex $`u`$ and an edge $`v_1v_2`$ of $`J`$ so that $`X_1N_u`$ and $`X_2R_{v_1v_2}`$ then the theorem holds.
For by (2) we may assume $`u`$ is different from $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. Choose a cycle $`C_1`$ of $`H`$ using the branch between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ and not using $`u`$, and choose a minimal track $`S`$ in $`H\{v_1,v_2\}`$ between $`u`$ and $`V(C_1)`$. Let the ends of $`S`$ be $`u`$ and $`w`$ say. Hence in $`L(H)`$ there are three vertex-disjoint paths, from $`N_{v_1}`$, $`N_{v_2}`$,$`N_u`$ respectively to $`N_w`$, and there are no edges between them except in the triangle $`T`$ formed by their ends in $`N_w`$. If $`p_n`$ has a unique neighbour (say $`r`$) in $`R_{v_1v_2}`$, then $`r`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`T`$, contrary to 2.4. If $`p_n`$ has two nonadjacent neighbours in $`R_{v_1v_2}`$, then $`p_n`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`T`$, contrary to 2.4. So $`p_n`$ has exactly two neighbours in $`R_{v_1v_2}`$, and they are adjacent. If $`p_1`$ is adjacent to all of $`N_u`$, then statement 1 of the theorem holds, so we may assume that $`p_1`$ has a neighbour and a non-neighbour in $`N_u`$. Let $`A`$ be the neighbours of $`p_1`$ in $`N_u`$ and $`B=N_uA`$. In $`H`$ there is a cycle $`C_2`$ using the branch between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, and using an edge in $`A`$ and an edge in $`B`$. (To see this, divide $`u`$ into two adjacent vertices, one incident with the edges in $`A`$ and the other with those in $`B`$, and use Menger’s theorem to deduce that there are two vertex-disjoint paths between these two vertices and $`\{v_1,v_2\}`$.) Hence in $`G`$, there is a path between $`N_{v_1}`$ and $`N_{v_2}`$ using a unique edge of $`N(u)`$, and that edge is between a vertex $`aA`$ say and some vertex in $`B`$. Hence $`a`$ can be linked onto the triangle formed by $`p_n`$ and its two neighbours in $`R_{v_1v_2}`$, a contradiction. This proves (6).
(7) If there are edges $`u_1v_1`$ and $`u_2v_2`$ of $`J`$ with $`X_iR_{u_iv_i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$, then the theorem holds.
For in this case it follows that the edges $`u_1v_1`$ and $`u_2v_2`$ are different, and hence we may assume that $`v_2`$ is different from $`u_1`$ and $`v_1`$, and $`v_1`$ is different from $`u_2`$ and $`v_2`$; possibly $`u_1=u_2`$. If $`p_1`$ has exactly two neighbours in $`R_{u_1v_1}`$ and they are adjacent, and also $`p_n`$ has exactly two neighbours in $`R_{u_2v_2}`$ and they are adjacent, then statement 1 of the theorem holds; so we may assume that $`p_1`$ has either only one neighbour, or two nonadjacent neighbours, in $`R_{u_1v_1}`$. There is a cycle in $`H`$ using the branch between $`u_1`$ and $`v_1`$, and using $`u_2`$ and not $`v_2`$ (since $`Jv_2`$ is $`2`$-connected). There correspond two paths in $`L(H)`$, say $`P`$ and $`Q`$, from $`N_{u_1}`$ and $`N_{v_1}`$ respectively to $`N_{u_2}`$, disjoint from each other, and there is a third path $`R`$ say from $`p_1`$ to $`N_u`$ via $`F`$ and a subpath of $`R_{u_2v_2}`$. There are no edges between these paths except within the triangle $`T`$ formed by their ends in $`N_u`$. If $`p_1`$ has only one neighbour $`rR_{u_1v_1}`$, then we may assume that $`r`$ is in the interior of $`R_{u_1v_1}`$, by (6), and so $`r`$ can be linked onto $`T`$, contrary to 2.4. If $`p_1`$ has two nonadjacent neighbours in $`R_{u_1v_1}`$, then $`p_1`$ can be linked onto $`T`$, again a contradiction. This proves (7).

But (2)-(7) cover all the possibilities for the local sets $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, and so this proves 5.10.

## 6 Major attachments to a line graph

In this section we study anticonnected sets of “major” vertices, and their common neighbours in $`L(H)`$. Conveniently we can again apply 5.7, because of the following.

###### 6.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and let $`L(H)`$ be an appearance in $`G`$ of a 3-connected graph $`J`$, let $`Y`$ be an anticonnected set of vertices in $`V(G)V(L(H))`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`L(H)`$. Then either:

* $`J=K_{3,3}`$ or $`K_4`$, and $`L(H)`$ is degenerate, and there is a $`J`$-enlargement that appears in $`\overline{G}`$, or
* $`X`$ satisfies hypotheses (a) and (b) of 5.7.

Proof. That $`X`$ satisfies hypothesis (a) of 5.7 is immediate from 2.2, so it remains to prove that if hypothesis (b) is false then the first alternative of the theorem holds. We begin with:
(1) If $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}X`$ is a matching in $`H`$, and $`P`$ is an even track of $`H`$ with end-edges $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ and with no edge of $`X`$ in its interior, then $`P`$ has length $`4`$ and its middle vertex is incident with $`x_3`$.
Let the vertices of $`P`$ be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$; so $`n4`$ and is even, $`x_1`$ is $`p_1p_2`$, and $`x_2`$ is $`p_{n1}p_n`$. Since $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ is a matching, it follows that $`x_3`$ is not incident with any of $`p_1,p_2,p_{n1},p_n`$. By 2.2, $`x_3`$ in incident with some vertex of $`P`$, and hence shares an end with at least two internal edges of $`P`$. By 2.5, $`x_3`$ shares an end with one of the first two edges of $`P`$, and with one of the last two. It is therefore incident with $`p_2`$ and with $`p_{n2}`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite and $`n`$ is even, it follows that $`p_2=p_{n2}`$ and so $`n=4`$. This proves (1).

Now assume that hypothesis (b) of 5.7 fails to hold; and we may therefore assume that $`Y`$ is minimal such that it is anticonnected and hypothesis (b) is false. Then there are three tracks $`T_1,T_2,T_3`$ of $`H`$ with an end ($`v`$ say) in common and otherwise vertex-disjoint, such that each contains an edge in $`X`$, and at least two of the three edges of the tracks incident with $`v`$ do not belong to $`X`$. Let $`T_i`$ be from $`a_i`$ to $`v`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. We may assume that the only edge of each $`T_i`$ in $`X`$ is the edge ($`x_i`$, say) incident with $`a_i`$. Now two of $`T_1,T_2,T_3`$ have lengths of the same parity, say $`T_1,T_2`$; and yet $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ is a matching in $`H`$, since at most one of these edges is incident with $`v`$. Hence from (1), $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ both have length $`2`$, and $`T_3`$ has length $`1`$. For $`i=1,2`$, let $`u_i`$ be the middle vertex of $`T_i`$, let $`e_i`$ be the edge $`vu_i`$ of $`H`$, and let $`A_i`$ be the set of all $`aV(H)`$ so that $`au_iE(H)X`$. Let $`C`$ be the set of all $`cV(H)`$ so that $`cvE(H)X`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite it follows that $`C`$ is disjoint from $`A_1A_2`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath of $`G`$ between $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$, with interior in $`Y`$. Since $`Q`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`e_2\text{-}x_1\text{-}x_2\text{-}e_1`$ it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. From the minimality of $`Y`$ it follows that $`Y=V(Q^{})`$. Now $`A_1A_2`$ is empty; for if there exists $`aA_1A_2`$, then $`au_1=v_1`$ and $`au_2=v_2`$ are vertices of $`G`$ in $`X`$, and $`Q`$ could be completed to an odd antihole via $`e_2\text{-}v_1\text{-}x_3\text{-}v_2\text{-}e_1`$, a contradiction. So $`A_1,A_2,C`$ are mutually disjoint. Note also that every edge of $`H`$ in $`X`$ is incident with one of $`v,u_1,u_2`$, by 2.2.
(2) We may assume there is no track in $`H\{u_1,u_2,v\}`$ between $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$.
For assume $`T`$ is a minimal such track. It is even (since all the vertices in $`A_1A_2`$ have the same biparity), and no internal vertex is in $`A_1A_2`$; and none of its edges are in $`X`$, since all edges in $`X`$ are incident with one of $`v,u_1,u_2`$. Hence by (1) applied to the track formed by $`T`$, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, it follows that $`T`$ has length 2 and its middle vertex is $`c`$ (for every $`cC`$.) So $`C=\{c\}`$, say, where $`ca_1`$ and c$`a_2`$ are edges. Also, every edge in $`X`$ is incident with one of the vertices of $`T`$, and so for $`i=1,2`$, $`|A_i|=1`$, and $`A_i=\{a_i\}`$. Suppose that $`|V(H)|7`$, and let $`Z`$ be any component of $`H\{v,u_1,u_2,a_1,a_2,c\}`$. At most one of $`u_1,u_2,c`$ has a neighbour in $`Z`$, for otherwise since they have the same biparity there would be an even track in $`H`$ with end-edges two of $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ disjoint from the third, contrary to (1). Similarly at most one of $`a_1,a_2,v`$ has neighbours in $`Z`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected, there is exactly one of each biparity with a neighbour in $`Z`$, and they are nonadjacent, so from the symmetry we may assume that $`u_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are the two vertices of these six with neighbours in $`Z`$. Let $`S`$ be a track between $`u_1`$ and $`a_2`$ with interior in $`Z`$; then $`c\text{-}v\text{-}u_1\text{-}S\text{-}a_2\text{-}u_2`$ is an even path with end-edges in $`X`$ and no internal edge in $`X`$, of length $`6`$, contrary to (1). So there is no such $`Z`$, and hence $`|V(H)|=6`$, and the only other possible edges of $`H`$ are $`a_1u_2`$ and $`a_2u_1`$. Since $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected, at least one of these is present, so we may assume $`a_1u_2`$ is an edge. Thus $`J=K_{3,3}`$ or $`K_4`$, and $`L(H)`$ is degenerate. We claim that also there is an appearance in $`\overline{G}`$ of a 3-connected graph with more edges than $`J`$. For recall that $`Y=V(Q^{})`$, where $`Q`$ is an odd antipath between $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$. Let the end-vertices of $`Q^{}`$ be $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, where $`y_i`$ is nonadjacent to $`e_i`$. For $`i=1,2`$, let $`Y_i=Yy_i`$, and let $`X_i`$ be the set of $`Y_i`$-complete vertices in $`V(H)`$. From the minimality of $`Y`$ it follows that each $`X_i`$ satisfies hypothesis (b) of 5.7, and so by 5.7, $`X_i`$ saturates $`L(H)`$ (for the other possibilities listed in 5.7 cannot hold). Since $`e_1X_1X_2`$ and $`e_2X_2X_1`$, and $`X_1X_2=X`$, it follows that every edge of $`H`$ is in one of $`X_1,X_2`$, and every branch-vertex of $`H`$ is incident with exactly two edges in $`X_1`$ and two in $`X_2`$. So $`a_1u_2X_1`$, $`a_1cX_2`$, $`a_2cX_1`$, and if the edge $`u_1a_2`$ exists it belongs to $`X_2`$. But then $`\overline{G}|(V(L(H))Y)`$ is an appearance in $`\overline{G}`$ of a $`J`$-enlargement, and so the theorem holds. This proves (2).

From (2), there is a partition $`(F_1,F_2)`$ of $`V(H)\{u_1,u_2,v\}`$ with $`A_iF_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ so that there is no edge between $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$. We may assume that $`CF_2`$ is nonempty, so (since $`H\{u_2,v\}`$ is connected, by 5.5) there is a track in $`H\{u_2,v\}`$ between $`u_1`$ and $`CF_2`$. Since there are no edges between $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, this track does not meet $`F_1`$, and so none of its edges are in $`X`$. Since $`u_1`$ and the vertices in $`C`$ have the same biparity, this track is even; and it is the interior of a track $`P`$ say from $`a_1`$ to $`v`$ with first and last edges in $`X`$ and no other edges in $`X`$. From 2.2, the edge $`cv`$ must have an end in the interior of $`P`$, and so $`c`$ is a vertex of $`P`$, for every $`cC`$; and so (since we may assume $`P`$ is minimal), $`|C|=1`$, $`C=\{c\}`$ say. From (1), we deduce that $`P`$ has length 4, and every vertex in $`A_2`$ is the middle vertex of $`P`$, and so $`A_2=\{a_2\}`$, and $`a_2`$ is adjacent to both $`u_1`$ and $`c`$. The three tracks $`a_1\text{-}u_1\text{-}a_2`$ , $`v\text{-}c\text{-}a_2`$,$`u_2\text{-}a_2`$ are another instance of three tracks violating hypothesis (b) of 5.7, and so by (2) applied to these three tracks, we deduce that there is no track in $`H\{c,u_1,a_2\}`$ between $`A_1`$ and $`v`$. Since $`A_1`$ is nonempty and is contained in $`F_1`$, there is a maximal connected subset $`FF_1`$ with nonempty intersection with $`A_1`$. So the only vertices of $`L(H)`$ not in $`F`$ which might have neighbours in $`F`$ are $`u_1,u_2,v`$. On the other hand, neither $`u_2`$ nor $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$, since there is no track in $`Hc,u_1,a_2`$ between $`A_1`$ and $`v`$. So $`u_1`$ is the only such vertex, contradicting that $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected. This proves 6.1.

The remainder of this section is concerned with analyzing the five possible outcomes of 5.7. Let us say a vertex $`vV(G)V(L(H))`$ is major (with respect to $`L(H)`$) if the set of its neighbours in $`L(H)`$ saturates $`L(H)`$. An appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$ is overshadowed if there is a branch $`B`$ of $`H`$ with odd length $`3`$, with ends $`b_1,b_2`$, so that some vertex of $`G`$ is nonadjacent in $`G`$ to at most one vertex in $`\delta (b_1)`$ and at most one in $`\delta (b_2)`$.

###### 6.2

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`L(H)`$ be an appearance in $`G`$ of a 3-connected graph $`J`$, let $`Y`$ be an anticonnected set of major vertices in $`V(G)V(L(H))`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`L(H)`$. Assume that $`X`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$. Then $`J=K_{3,3}`$ or $`K_4`$. Moreover:

* If $`J=K_{3,3}`$, then either:

+ there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, or
    + $`L(H)`$ is degenerate and there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`\overline{G}`$, or
    + $`L(H)`$ is degenerate and there is a $`J`$-enlargement that appears in $`\overline{G}`$.
* If $`J=K_4`$ and $`L(H)`$ is nondegenerate then there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$.
* If $`J=K_4`$ and $`L(H)`$ is degenerate, let $`V(J)=\{1,2,3,4\}`$, and for $`1i<j4`$ let $`B_{ij}=B_{ji}`$ be the branch of $`J`$ joining $`i`$ and $`j`$; let the end-edges of $`B_{ij}`$ be $`r_{ij}`$ (incident with $`i`$) and $`r_{ji}`$ (incident with $`j`$); and let $`R_{ij}`$ $`R_{ij}`$ be the path $`L(B_{ij})`$ in $`G`$ (so $`r_{ij}`$ and $`r_{ji}`$ are the end-vertices of this path). Let $`R_{1,3},R_{1,4},R_{2,3},R_{2,4}`$ have length $`0`$. Then either:

1. there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, or
    2. (up to symmetry) there exist nonadjacent $`y,y^{}Y`$ so that the neighbours of $`y`$ in $`L(H)`$ are $`r_{1,2},r_{1,4},r_{3,2},r_{3,4},r_{2,4}`$ and possibly $`r_{1,3}`$, and the neighbours of $`y^{}`$ are $`r_{2,1},r_{2,3},r_{4,1},r_{4,3},r_{1,3}`$ and possibly $`r_{2,4}`$, or
    3. $`R_{1,2},R_{3,4}`$ have length $`1`$.

Proof. Suppose not; then we may assume that $`Y`$ is minimal such that it is anticonnected and its common neighbours do not saturate $`L(H)`$. Choose two vertices of $`L(H)`$, both incident in $`H`$ with the same branch-vertex of $`H`$, and both not in $`X`$. Then there is an antipath joining them with interior in $`Y`$, and the common neighbours of the interior of this antipath do not saturate $`L(H)`$. From the minimality of $`Y`$ it follows that this antipath contains all vertices in $`Y`$. Consequently, $`Y`$ is the vertex set of an antipath $`Q`$ say, with ends $`y_1`$,$`y_2`$ say. From the hypothesis, $`|Y|2`$, since the neighbours of any vertex in $`Y`$ saturate $`L(H)`$, so $`y_1,y_2`$ are distinct. Now for $`i=1,2`$, $`Yy_i`$ (= $`Y_i`$ say) is anticonnected; let $`X_i`$ be the set of $`Y_i`$-complete vertices in $`L(H)`$. From the minimality of $`Y`$, both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ saturate $`L(H)`$.
(1) For every branch-vertex $`b`$ of $`H`$, $`X`$ contains all edges of $`H`$ incident with $`b`$ except at most two; and if there are two such edges incident with $`b`$ not in $`X`$, then one is in $`X_1X_2`$ and the other in $`X_2X_1`$.
For both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ saturate $`L(H)`$. Therefore, $`X_1`$ contains at least all except one of the edges of $`H`$ incident with $`b`$, and so does $`X_2`$. Since $`X_1X_2=X`$ this proves (1).

Now by 6.1, we may assume that $`X`$ satisfies one of the five alternatives of 5.7, for otherwise the theorem holds. Let us examine them. It is convenient to postpone the case $`J=K_4`$ until later.
(2) If $`JK_4`$ then the theorem holds.
For 5.7.1 does not hold by hypothesis. Since $`H`$ has at least five branch-vertices, and each of them is incident with an edge in $`X`$, it follows that 5.7.3 and 5.7.4 do not hold. We may therefore assume that either 5.7.2 or 5.7.5 holds. In the first case, let $`B`$ be a branch of $`H`$ with ends $`b_1,b_2`$ so that every edge in $`X`$ has an end in $`V(B)`$; and in the second case, let $`b_1,b_2`$ be vertices of $`H`$, of opposite biparity and not in the same branch, so that $`X=\delta (b_1)\delta (b_2)`$, and let $`B`$ be the subgraph of $`H`$ consisting just of $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ (and no edges). (Note that in this second case, $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ need not be branch-vertices.) Let $`H^{}=HV(B)`$. By 5.5, $`H^{}`$ is connected, but none of its edges are in $`X`$. By (1), all vertices of $`H^{}`$ have degree $`2`$ , and so $`H^{}`$ is a path or hole in $`H`$. If $`H^{}`$ is a hole, let the branch-vertices of $`H`$ that lie in this hole be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order (there are at least three, since $`JK_4`$); define $`p_0=p_n`$, and let $`B_i`$ the branch of $`H`$ with ends $`p_{i1}`$ and $`p_i`$ , for $`1in`$. (So $`H^{}`$ is the union of $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$.) If $`H^{}`$ is a path, let its ends be $`p_0`$ and $`p_n`$, and let the branch-vertices of $`H`$ in its interior be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$, so that $`p_0,\mathrm{},p_n`$ are in order (so $`n2`$); and for $`1in`$ let $`B_i`$ be the path of $`H^{}`$ between $`p_{i1}`$ and $`p_i`$. In either case, for $`1in`$ let the end-edges of $`B_i`$ be $`e_i`$ (incident with $`p_{i1}`$) and $`f_i`$ (incident with $`p_i`$). So for $`1i<n`$, one of $`e_{i+1},f_i`$ is in $`X_1`$ and the other is in $`X_2`$; and the same holds for $`e_1,f_n`$ if $`H^{}`$ is a hole. We recall that $`Q`$ is an antipath in $`Y`$ between $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$; there are two cases depending whether $`Q`$ is odd or even.

Assume first that $`Q`$ is even. Then there do not exist two disjoint edges of $`H^{}`$, one in $`X_1`$ and the other in $`X_2`$, for if there were we could complete $`Q`$ to an odd antihole in $`G`$ using them. Since there is a branch-vertex in $`H^{}`$ different from $`p_0,p_n`$, it follows that $`H^{}`$ has an edge in $`X_1`$ and one in $`X_2`$, and since all edges of the first type meet all those of the second type, there are at most two of each. Suppose that there are two of each. Then $`H^{}`$ is a hole of length 4, and its four edges are alternately in $`X_1`$ and in $`X_2`$. If $`b_1`$ is not a branch-vertex then it is not adjacent to $`b_2`$, and so all its neighbours in $`H`$ are in $`H^{}`$; while if $`b_1`$ is a branch-vertex then it has degree $`3`$, and at least all except one of its neighbours are in $`H^{}`$. So in either case $`b_1`$ has at least two neighbours in $`H^{}`$, and so does $`b_2`$. Since $`H`$ is bipartite, they are each adjacent to exactly two vertices of $`H^{}`$, and these two vertices are nonadjacent; and $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ cannot be adjacent to the same pair of vertices of $`H^{}`$, since $`H`$ is cyclically 3-connected. Since $`H`$ has at least five branch-vertices, one of $`b_1,b_2`$ is a branch-vertex, and so $`B`$ is a branch, and hence both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are branch-vertices. All four vertices of $`H^{}`$ have degree $`3`$ in $`H`$, and so $`J=K_{3,3}`$. Now $`B`$ has odd length. If it has length $`3`$, then $`L(H)`$ is overshadowed since any vertex in $`Q`$ is complete in $`G`$ to the four vertices of $`L(H)`$ that in $`H`$ are the edges joining $`V(B)`$ and $`V(H^{})`$. So we may assume $`B`$ has length 1; let its edge be $`b`$. All branches of $`H`$ now have length 1, so $`L(H)`$ is degenerate. Then $`\overline{G}|(V(L(H))b)V(Q)`$ is an appearance of $`J=K_{3,3}`$ in $`\overline{G}`$; and this appearance is overshadowed, because $`Q`$ has even length $`2`$, and because the vertex $`b`$ is adjacent in $`\overline{G}`$ to each of $`e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4`$. So in either case the theorem holds. Hence we may assume that exactly one edge of $`H^{}`$ is in $`X_2`$ say. If $`H^{}`$ is a hole, then it contains at least 3 branch-vertices of $`H`$, each incident with an edge of $`H^{}`$ in $`X_2`$, a contradiction. So $`H^{}`$ is a path, and by the same argument, $`n3`$. Assume that $`n=3`$. Then it follows that $`e_2=f_2X_2`$, and $`f_1,e_3X_1`$. Since $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are branch-vertices they are each adjacent to one of $`b_1,b_2`$, and not the same one since $`H`$ is bipartite. Hence $`b_1,b_2`$ have opposite biparity, and hence have no common neighbours in $`H^{}`$. Since they each have at least two neighbours in $`V(H^{})`$, it follows that they both have exactly two, and each of $`p_0,p_1,p_2,p_3`$ is adjacent to exactly one of $`b_1,b_2`$. But then $`p_0,p_3`$ have degree 2 in $`H`$, and so $`H`$ has only four branch-vertices, a contradiction. So $`n=2`$. Since $`H`$ has $`5`$ branch-vertices, it follows that $`b_1,b_2,p_0,p_2`$ are all branch-vertices, and so $`B`$ is a branch, and $`p_0,p_2`$ are both adjacent to both $`b_1,b_2`$. Since $`p_1`$ is adjacent to one of $`b_1,b_2`$, it follows that $`p_0,p_1,p_2`$ all have the same biparity, and so $`B_1,B_2`$ both have even length, and so does $`B`$. We may assume that $`f_1X_1`$ and $`e_2X_2`$. Consequently, $`e_1X_1`$, and $`f_2X_2`$; and not both $`e_1X_2`$, and $`f_2X_1`$, for all edges in $`X_1`$ meet all those in $`X_2`$. So we may assume that $`e_1`$ is not in $`X_1X_2`$. Since both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ saturate $`L(H)`$, it follows that the edges $`p_0b_1`$ and $`p_0b_2`$ are both in both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, and hence are both in $`X`$. Also, $`p_1`$ is adjacent to one of $`b_1,b_2`$, say $`b_1`$, and the edge $`p_1b_1X`$. So the track $`b_2\text{-}p_0\text{-}B_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}b_1`$ is even, has length $`4`$, and both its end-edges are in $`X`$ and none of its other edges are in $`X`$. Consequently every edge of $`H`$ in $`X`$ has an end in the interior of this track, by 2.2, and in particular no edge incident with $`p_2`$ is in $`X`$, a contradiction. This completes the proof of (2) when $`Q`$ is even.

Now we prove (2) when $`Q`$ is odd. For this we shall use repeatedly the fact that if $`e_1X_1X_2`$, and $`e_2X_2X_1`$, and $`e_0X`$, and $`e_1`$ meets $`e_2`$, then one of them meets $`e_0`$; for otherwise $`Q`$ could be completed to an odd antihole in $`G`$ via $`y_2\text{-}e_1\text{-}e_0\text{-}e_2\text{-}y_1`$. If $`H^{}`$ is a hole, then we may choose $`p_i,p_j`$ nonadjacent; and since one of $`f_i,e_{i+1}`$ is in $`X_1`$ and the other in $`X_2`$, and there is an edge in $`X`$ between $`p_j`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2\}`$, this is a contradiction. So $`H^{}`$ is a path. Since one of $`f_1,e_2`$ is in $`X_1`$ and the other in $`X_2`$, every edge in $`X`$ meets one of these two edges, and since for $`1i<n`$ there is an edge in $`X`$ between $`p_i`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2\}`$, it follows that $`n3`$. Assume that $`n=3`$; then there is no edge in $`X`$ incident with $`p_3`$, and so $`p_3`$ is not a branch-vertex, and similarly $`p_0`$ is not a branch-vertex (by the same argument with $`p_1`$ replaced by $`p_2`$); but then $`H`$ has only four branch-vertices, a contradiction. So $`n=2`$, and therefore $`b_1,b_2,p_0,p_2`$ are all branch-vertices, and $`B`$ is a branch, and $`p_0,p_2`$ are adjacent to both of $`b_1,b_2`$. Since there is an edge in $`X`$ between $`p_0`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2\}`$, which therefore meets either $`f_1`$ or $`e_2`$, it follows that $`B_1`$ has length 1, and similarly so does $`B_2`$; but then since $`H`$ is bipartite, $`p_1`$ is nonadjacent to both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, a contradiction since it is a branch-vertex. This proves (2).

Henceforth we may assume that $`J=K_4`$. To simplify notation, let $`V(J)=\{1,2,3,4\}`$, and let the branch of $`H`$ joining $`i`$ and $`j`$ be $`B_{i,j}=B_{j,i}`$; let its end-edges be $`r_{i,j}`$ (incident with $`i`$) and $`r_{j,i}`$ (incident with $`j`$); and let $`R_{i,j}=R_{j,i}=L(B_{i,j})`$ (that is, the path in $`G`$ between $`r_{i,j}`$ and $`r_{j,i}`$ formed by the vertices of $`G`$ in $`E(B_{i,j})`$). For $`k=1,2,3,4`$, we denote by $`C_k`$ the hole in $`G`$ induced on the union of the three paths $`R_{i,j}`$ ($`i,jk`$), and we denote by $`T_k`$ the triangle $`\{r_{k,i}:1i4,ik\}`$. We observe first that
(3) If $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}X`$, then every vertex of $`C_4`$ in $`X`$ is adjacent to one of $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}`$.
For this is trivial if $`C_4`$ has length 4, so assume it has length $`6`$. Suppose that some vertex $`x`$ of $`C_4`$ nonadjacent to $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}`$ belongs to $`X`$. Now by (1), $`r_{3,4}X`$, and we may assume $`r_{3,i}X_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. So $`r_{3,1}\text{-}y_1\text{-}Q\text{-}y_2\text{-}r_{3,2}`$ is an antipath, of length $`3`$. It is even, since it can be completed to an antihole via $`r_{3,2}\text{-}x\text{-}r_{3,1}`$; and this contradicts 3.3. This proves (3).
(4) If one of $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_4`$ contains no member of $`X`$ then the theorem holds.
For suppose that no vertex of $`C_4`$ say is in $`X`$. Then from (1), $`r_{1,4},r_{2,4},r_{3,4}`$ are all in $`X`$. Now one of $`R_{1,2},R_{1,3},R_{2,3}`$ has odd length, since $`C_4`$ has even length, say $`R_{1,2}`$. If $`r_{1,4},r_{2,4}`$ are not adjacent then $`r_{1,4}\text{-}r_{1,2}\text{-}R_{1,2}\text{-}r_{2,1}\text{-}r_{2,4}`$ is an odd path between vertices in $`X`$, and none of its internal vertices are in $`X`$, and $`r_{3,4}`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So they are adjacent, that is, $`R_{1,4},R_{2,4}`$ both have length 0. Since we may assume that $`r_{2,1},r_{2,3}`$ are in $`X_1X_2`$ and $`X_2X_1`$ respectively, it follows that $`Q`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y_2\text{-}r_{2,3}\text{-}r_{1,4}\text{-}r_{2,1}\text{-}y_1`$, and hence $`Q`$ has even length $`2`$. By 3.3, since $`Q`$ is the interior of an even antipath between $`r_{1,3}`$ and $`r_{1,2}`$, and $`r_{2,1},r_{2,3}`$ are both different from $`r_{1,3},r_{1,2}`$, and one of $`r_{2,1}`$ and $`r_{2,3}`$ is in $`X_1X_2`$ and the other in $`X_2X_1`$, it follows that $`C_4`$ has length 4, and therefore $`R_{1,3},R_{2,3}`$ have length 0, and $`R_{1,2}`$ has length 1. Also, $`r_{1,3}X_1X_2`$ by (1), and hence $`r_{1,2}X_2X_1`$. But then $`\overline{G}|(T_1T_2T_3Y)`$ is an appearance in $`\overline{G}`$ of $`K_4`$; and since $`Q`$ has even length $`2`$, it is overshadowed in $`\overline{G}`$ because of the vertex $`r_{4,3}`$, and so statement 1 of the theorem holds. This proves (4).
(5) If one of $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_4`$ contains at most one member of $`X`$ then the theorem holds.
By (4) we may assume at least one vertex of each $`C_k`$ is in $`X`$. We may therefore assume that exactly one vertex (say $`x`$) of $`C_4`$ say is in $`X`$; and so from the symmetry we may assume that $`x`$ is in $`R_{1,2}`$. So neither of $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}`$ is in $`X`$, and so from 6.1, we may assume that $`Y`$ cannot be linked onto $`T_3`$. Consequently $`x=r_{2,1}`$ (for otherwise $`r_{2,4}X`$ and we could use the paths $`r_{3,4}`$, $`r_{2,4}\text{-}r_{2,3}\text{-}R_{2,3}\text{-}r_{3,2}`$, and a subpath of $`C_4r_{3,2}`$ from $`x`$ to $`r_{3,1}`$ to link $`Y`$ onto $`T_3`$), and similarly $`x=r_{1,2}`$. So $`R_{1,2}`$ has length 0. Also, from (3), $`x`$ is adjacent to one of $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}`$, so we may assume that $`R_{2,3}`$ has length 0 . Therefore $`R_{1,3}`$ is odd. Hence $`r_{1,2}\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}R_{1,3}\text{-}r_{3,1}\text{-}r_{3,4}`$ is an odd path between vertices in $`X`$, and its internal vertices are not in $`X`$. By 2.2, every vertex in $`X`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{1,3}`$. Hence $`r_{3,4}`$ is the only vertex of $`C_1`$ in $`X`$; and so (by exchanging $`C_1`$ and $`C_4`$) we deduce that $`R_{3,4}`$ has length 0. So $`R_{1,4}`$ is even, and $`R_{2,4}`$ is odd, and the latter is the interior of a second odd path between members of $`X`$. We claim that $`R_{1,4}`$ has length 0; for if $`X=\{r_{1,2},r_{3,4}\}`$, this follows from the symmetry between $`R_{1,4}`$ and $`R_{2,3}`$, while if $`|X|>2`$ then since every vertex in $`X`$ has a neighbour in both $`R_{1,3}`$ and $`R_{2,4}`$, the third vertex in $`X`$ must be both $`r_{1,4}`$ and $`r_{4,1}`$, and hence again $`R_{1,4}`$ has length 0. So $`R_{1,2},R_{2,3},R_{3,4},R_{1,4}`$ all have length 0, and so $`L(H)`$ is degenerate, and $`X=\{r_{1,2},r_{3,4}\}`$ or $`\{r_{1,2},r_{3,4},r_{1,4}\}`$.

In particular there is symmetry between $`R_{1,3}`$ and $`R_{4,2}`$. If both these paths have length 1 then statement 3 of the theorem holds, so from the symmetry we may assume that $`R_{1,3}`$ has length $`>1`$. Now we recall that there is an antipath $`Q`$ in $`Y`$ between $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, with $`V(Q)=Y`$. Let its vertices be $`y_1=q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_k=y_2`$ in order. We may assume that $`r_{3,1}X_1`$ and $`r_{3,2}X_2`$; and consequently $`r_{2,4}X_1`$. Now $`R_{1,3}`$ has length $`>1`$ and is odd, so $`r_{1,2}\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}R_{1,3}\text{-}r_{3,1}\text{-}r_{3,4}`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$, with ends in $`X`$ and no internal vertex in $`X`$. By 2.1, $`Y`$ contains a leap. But the only vertex in $`Y`$ nonadjacent to $`r_{3,1}`$ is $`y_1=q_1`$, and its only nonneighbour in $`Y`$ is $`q_2`$; so $`q_1,q_2`$ is the leap. Hence $`q_2`$ is adjacent to $`r_{1,4}`$, since it has two neighbours in $`T_1`$. Now the path $`r_{1,2}\text{-}r_{2,4}\text{-}R_{2,4}\text{-}r_{4,2}\text{-}r_{4,3}`$ is odd and has length $`3`$, between common neighbours of $`\{q_1,q_2\}`$; and these two vertices have no common neighbour in its interior, since we could complete the path $`q_1\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}R_{1,3}\text{-}r_{3,1}\text{-}q_2`$ to an odd hole through any such common neighbour. So $`\{q_1,q_2\}`$ is also a leap for this second path. But then the only neighbours of $`q_1`$ in $`L(H)`$ are $`r_{1,2},r_{1,3},r_{4,2},r_{4,3},r_{2,3}`$ and possibly $`r_{1,4}`$; and the only neighbours of $`q_2`$ are $`r_{2,1},r_{2,4},r_{3,1},r_{3,4},r_{1,4}`$ and possibly $`r_{2,3}`$. But then statement 2 of the theorem holds. This proves (5).
(6) If $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}X`$ then either the theorem holds, or $`C_4`$ has length $`4`$ and its other two vertices are in $`X`$.
For by (5), we may assume that at least two vertices of $`C_4`$ are in $`X`$. Since $`Y`$ cannot be linked onto $`T_3`$, there are exactly two such vertices and they are adjacent. By (3) they are both adjacent to one of $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}`$. This proves (6).
(7) If $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}X`$ and $`R_{1,2}`$ has length $`>0`$ then the theorem holds.
For then by (6) we may assume that $`R_{1,2}`$ has length 1, and $`R_{1,3},R_{2,3}`$ both have length 0, and $`r_{1,2},r_{2,1}`$ are both in $`X`$. Since $`Y`$ cannot be linked onto $`T_3`$ it follows that $`r_{1,4}X`$, and similarly $`r_{2,4}X`$. By (1) we may assume that $`r_{1,3}X_1X_2`$, and $`r_{1,4}X_2X_1`$. But then $`r_{2,3}X_2X_1`$, and $`r_{2,4}X_1X_2`$. Hence $`Q`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y_2\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}r_{2,1}\text{-}r_{1,4}\text{-}y_2`$, and so $`Q`$ is even; and it therefore cannot be completed via $`y_2\text{-}r_{2,4}\text{-}r_{1,4}\text{-}y_1`$, and so $`r_{1,4},r_{2,4}`$ are adjacent. So $`R_{1,4},R_{2,4}`$ both have length 0, and therefore $`R_{3,4}`$ has odd length. Since $`r_{1,3}`$ and $`r_{1,4}`$ are not in $`X`$, it follows from (6) applied to $`C_2`$ that we may assume $`C_2`$ has length 4, and hence $`R_{3,4}`$ has length 1; but then statement 3 of the theorem holds. This proves (7).

Now, to complete the proof: we may assume that $`r_{3,1},r_{3,2}X`$. By (6) and (7) we may assume that $`R_{1,2}`$ and $`R_{2,3}`$ have length 0, and $`R_{1,3}`$ has length 1, and $`r_{1,3},r_{1,2}X`$. Since $`Y`$ cannot be linked onto $`T_3`$ it follows that $`r_{2,4}X`$; so by (6) and (7) applied to $`C_1`$, we may assume that $`R_{3,4}`$ has length 0, $`R_{2,4}`$ has length 1, and $`r_{4,2}X`$. If $`R_{1,4}`$ has length 0 then statement 3 of the theorem holds, and otherwise $`L(H)`$ is overshadowed (since any vertex in $`Y`$ is adjacent to all of $`r_{1,2},r_{1,3},r_{4,2},r_{4,3}`$), and so statement 1 of the theorem holds. This proves 6.2.

## 7 Rung replacement

Before we apply 6.2, let us simplify it a little. We can effectively eliminate the two cases of $`L(H)`$ being overshadowed. We need a few lemmas.

###### 7.1

Let $`c_1,c_2`$ be adjacent vertices of a $`3`$-connected graph $`J`$, and let $`e,f`$ be edges of $`J`$ incident with $`c_1`$ and different from $`c_1c_2`$. There are three tracks of $`J`$ from $`c_1`$ to $`c_2`$, pairwise vertex-disjoint except for their ends, and with first edges $`c_1c_2,e,f`$ respectively.

Proof. Since $`J`$ is 3-connected, if we delete from $`J`$ all edges incident with $`c_1`$ except $`e`$ and $`f`$, the graph we make is still 2-connected, and so it has a cycle containing $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. This proves 7.1.

Let $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ be paths of $`G`$. We say they form a prism $`K`$ if they are pairwise disjoint, each has length $`1`$, and for each $`i`$ the ends of $`P_i`$ can be labelled $`a_i,b_i`$ so that for $`1i<j3`$ the only edges of $`G`$ between $`V(P_i)`$ and $`V(P_j)`$ are $`a_ia_j`$ and $`b_ib_j`$; and $`K`$ is the prism in $`G`$ induced on the union of these three paths.

###### 7.2

Let $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ be a prism in a Berge graph $`G`$; then $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ all have the same parity.

The proof is clear.

###### 7.3

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`YV(G)`$ be anticonnected, and for $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`a_i\text{-}P_i\text{-}b_i`$ be a path in $`GY`$, forming a prism with triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\},\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. Assume $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ all have length $`>1`$, and that every vertex in $`Y`$ is adjacent to at least two of $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and to at least two of $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. Then at least two of $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and at least two of $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$ are $`Y`$-complete.

Proof. Suppose not; then there is an antipath with interior in $`Y`$, joining two vertices either both in $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ or both in $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. Let $`Q`$ be the shortest such antipath. We may assume $`Q`$ joins $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ say. Since every vertex in $`Y`$ is adjacent to either $`a_1`$ or $`a_2`$ it follows that $`Q`$ has length $`3`$. From the minimality of $`Q`$, $`a_3`$ is $`Q^{}`$-complete, and so is at least one of $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$, say $`b_i`$. Since $`Q`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`a_1\text{-}b_i\text{-}a_2`$ it follows that $`Q`$ is even. From 3.3 applied to the hole formed by $`P_1P_2`$ and hat $`a_3`$, neither of $`b_1,b_2`$ is $`Q^{}`$-complete, and so there is an antipath between $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ with interior in $`Q^{}`$. By the minimality of $`Q`$, the two antipaths have the same interior; but this again contradicts 3.3. This proves 7.3.

In fact it is easy to find strengthenings of 7.3 in which some of the paths $`P_i`$ have length 1, but for the moment 7.3 will suffice.

###### 7.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and for $`1i3`$ let $`P_i`$ be a path of even length $`2`$, from $`a_i`$ to $`b_i`$, so that these three paths form a prism with triangles $`A=\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`B=\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. Let $`P_1^{}`$ be a path from $`a_1^{}`$ to $`b_1`$, so that $`P_1^{},P_2,P_3`$ also form a prism. Let $`yV(G)`$ have at least two neighbours in $`A`$ and in $`B`$. Then it also has at least two neighbours in $`\{a_1^{},a_2,a_3\}`$.

Proof. Suppose not. By 7.2 $`P_1^{}`$ has even length. Let $`X`$ be the set of neighbours of $`Y`$ in $`G`$. Then $`a_1^{}X`$, and $`a_1X`$, and exactly one of $`a_2,a_3X`$, say $`a_2X`$. Also, $`y`$ cannot be linked onto the triangle $`A^{}=\{a_1^{},a_2,a_3\}`$, by 2.4, and since one of $`b_2,b_3X`$ it follows that no internal vertex of $`P_1^{}`$ is in $`X`$. Hence $`b_1X`$, for otherwise $`y\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1^{}\text{-}P_1^{}\text{-}b_1\text{-}`$ would be an odd hole. So $`b_2,b_3X`$. Since $`y\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_3\text{-}P_3\text{-}b_3\text{-}y`$ is not an odd hole, there is a member of $`X`$ in $`P_3b_3`$. But then $`y`$ can be linked onto $`A^{}`$, via $`b_2\text{-}b_1\text{-}P_1^{}\text{-}a_1`$, the path $`a_2`$, and the path between $`y`$ and $`a_3`$ with interior in $`V(P_3)\{b_3\}`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves 7.4.

We shall only need the following when $`J=K_4`$ or $`K_{3,3}`$, but we might as well prove it in general.

###### 7.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and let $`L(H)`$ be an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, where $`J`$ is 3-connected. Then either:

* there is a $`J`$-enlargement with a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, or
* $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. For each edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$, let $`B_{uv}`$ be the branch of $`H`$ with ends $`u,v`$, and let $`R_{uv}`$ be the path $`L(B_{uv})`$ of $`L(H)`$. For each $`vV(J)`$ let $`N_v`$ be the clique of $`L(H)`$ with vertex set $`\delta _H(v)`$. There is an edge $`c_1c_2`$ of $`J`$ so that $`B_{c_1c_2}`$ has odd length $`3`$, and some vertex of $`G`$ is nonadjacent in $`G`$ to at most one vertex of $`N_{c_1}`$ and to at most one vertex of $`N_{c_2}`$. We say such a vertex $`v`$ is $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant with respect to L(H). Let the ends of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ (that is, the end-edges of $`B_{c_1c_2}`$) be $`r_1,r_2`$, where $`r_iN_{c_i}`$. Let $`Y`$ be a maximal anticonnected set of vertices each with at most one non-neighbour in $`N_{c_1}`$ and at most one non-neighbour in $`N_{c_2}`$. We shall prove that $`Y`$ and some of its common neighbours separate the interior of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ from the remainder of $`L(H)`$ in $`G`$, so that will be the skew partition we are looking for. Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`G`$.
(1) For $`i=1,2`$, at most one vertex of $`N_{c_i}`$ is not in $`X`$.
For let $`a_1,a_2`$ be any two distinct vertices in $`N_{c_1}r_1`$; we shall show that at most one of $`a_1,a_2,r_1`$ is not in $`X`$. By 7.1, there are two paths $`Q_1`$,$`Q_2`$ of $`H`$ between $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, so that $`Q_1`$,$`Q_2`$,$`B_{c_1c_2}`$ are vertex-disjoint except for their ends, and for $`i=1,2`$, $`a_i`$ is the first edge of $`Q_i`$. Let $`b_i`$ be the other end-edge of $`Q_i`$. Both $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ have odd length, since $`B_{c_1c_2}`$ is odd and $`H`$ is bipartite; and they have length $`3`$ since $`b_1,b_2`$ are nonadjacent (for they are the ends of a branch of length $`>1`$.) Hence there are two paths $`P_1`$,$`P_2`$ of $`L(H)`$ from $`N_{c_1}`$ to $`N_{c_2}`$, so that $`P_1`$,$`P_2`$,$`R_{c_1c_2}`$ are vertex-disjoint and form a prism, and $`P_i`$ is from $`a_i`$ to $`b_i`$. Now $`B_{c_1c_2}`$ is odd and therefore $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ is even, and similarly $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are even. By hypothesis, each member of $`Y`$ is adjacent to at least two vertices of the triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,r_1\}`$ and to two vertices of the triangle $`\{b_1,b_2,r_2\}`$. By 7.3 it follows that $`X`$ contains at least two members of $`\{a_1,a_2,r_1\}`$. This proves (1).

Let

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`X(N_{c_1}N_{c_2})`$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`X(V(L(H))(N_{c_1}N_{c_2}))`$
$`X_0`$ $`=`$ $`XV(L(H))`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`V(R_{c_1c_2})X_1`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`(V(L(H))V(R_{c_1c_2}))X_1.`$
We observe first that no vertex of $`S`$ is adjacent to any vertex in $`T`$; for such an edge would join two vertices both in $`N_{c_i}`$ for some $`i`$, and therefore both not in $`X`$, contradicting (1).
(2) If $`FV(G)`$ is connected and some vertex of $`S`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$, and so does some vertex of $`T`$, and $`F(X_0X_1Y)=\mathrm{}`$, then the theorem holds.
We shall prove this by induction on $`|F|`$; so, we assume it holds for all smaller choices of $`F`$ (even for different choices of $`L(H)`$). Hence we may assume that $`G|F`$ is a path with vertices $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ say, where $`f_1`$ is the only vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`S`$, and $`f_n`$ is the only vertex with a neighbour in $`T`$. From the minimality of $`F`$ it also follows that $`F`$ is disjoint from $`L(H)`$; for any vertex of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$ would be in $`S`$ or $`T`$, since it is not in $`X_1`$, and then we could make $`F`$ shorter by omitting this vertex. Consequently $`FX=\mathrm{}`$. Suppose some vertex in $`vF`$ is major with respect to $`L(H)`$. Then since $`vX`$ it follows that $`v`$ has a nonneighbour in $`Y`$, and so $`Yv`$ is anticonnected; the maximality of $`Y`$ therefore implies that $`vY`$, and hence $`FY\mathrm{}`$ and the claim holds. So we may assume that no vertex in $`F`$ is major. On the other hand, the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$ is not local, because it has an attachment in $`R_{c_1c_2}`$, and its attachments are not all contained in any of $`V(R_{c_1c_2})`$, $`N_{b_1}`$,$`N_{b_2}`$. Let us apply 5.10. Suppose first that 5.10.1 holds. Then we obtain an appearance $`L(H^{})`$ in $`G`$ of some $`J`$-enlargement, with $`L(H)`$ an induced subgraph of $`L(H^{})`$. Since $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ has even nonzero length, it follows that $`L(H)`$ is not degenerate, and therefore neither is $`L(H^{})`$, and hence the theorem holds. So we may assume that 5.10.2 holds, and there is an edge $`b_1b_2`$ of $`J`$, (for $`i=1,2`$, $`s_i`$ denotes the unique vertex in $`N_{b_i}R_{b_1b_2}`$) and a path $`P`$ of $`G`$ with $`V(P)F`$ and with ends $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, such that one of the following holds:

1. $`p_1`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_1}s_1`$, and $`p_2`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{b_1b_2}s_1`$, and every edge from $`V(P)`$ to $`V(L(H))s_1`$ is either from $`p_1`$ to $`N_{b_1}s_1`$, or from $`p_2`$ to $`R_{b_1b_2}s_1`$, or
2. for $`i=1,2`$, $`p_i`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_i}s_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(L(H))`$ except possibly $`p_1s_1,p_2s_2`$, and $`P`$ has the same parity as $`R_{b_1b_2}`$, or
3. $`p_1=p_2`$, and $`p_1`$ is adjacent to all vertices in $`(N_{b_1}N_{b_2})\{s_1,s_2\}`$, and all neighbours of $`p_1`$ in $`V(L(H))`$ belong to $`N_{b_1}N_{b_2}R_{b_1b_2}`$, and $`R_{b_1b_2}`$ is even, or
4. $`s_1=s_2`$, and for $`i=1,2`$, $`p_i`$ is adjacent in $`G`$ to all vertices in $`N_{b_i}s_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(L(H))s_1`$, and $`P`$ is even.

In case 1, let $`R^{}`$ be the (unique) path from $`p_1`$ to $`s_2`$ in $`(V(P)V(R_{b_1b_2}))s_1`$, and in the other cases let $`R^{}`$ be $`P`$. So if in $`L(H)`$ we replace $`R_{b_1b_2}`$ by $`R^{}`$ we obtain another appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, say $`L(H^{})`$, where $`H^{}`$ is obtained from $`H`$ by replacing the branch $`B_{b_1b_2}`$ by some new branch $`B^{}`$ joining the same two vertices. For each $`vV(J)`$ let $`N_v^{}`$ be the clique in $`L(H^{})`$ formed by the edges in $`\delta _H^{}(v)`$. So $`N_v^{}=N_v`$ for all vertices $`v`$ of $`J`$ except for $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$. Let $`R^{}`$ be between $`r_1^{}`$ and $`r_2^{}`$, where $`r_i^{}N_{b_i}^{}`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Now suppose that $`b_1b_2`$ and $`c_1c_2`$ are different edges of $`J`$. Then $`B_{c_1c_2}`$ is still a branch of $`H^{}`$, and we claim that every $`yY`$ is $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant with respect to $`L(H^{})`$. For let $`e,f`$ be two edges of $`J`$ incident with $`c_1`$ and different from $`c_1c_2`$. By 7.1 there are three tracks of $`J`$ from $`c_1`$ to $`c_2`$, vertex-disjoint except for their ends, and one of them is the edge $`c_1c_2`$, and the first edges of the other two are $`e`$ and $`f`$. There are three tracks corresponding to these in $`H`$, and their line graph is a prism in $`L(H)`$. There also correspond three tracks in $`H^{}`$, yielding a prism in $`L(H^{})`$. Since $`R_{b_1b_2}R_{c_1c_2}`$, it follows that $`R_{b_1b_2}`$ is incident with at most one of $`c_1,c_2`$, so these two prisms are related as in 7.4. Hence by 7.4, since $`y`$ has two neighbours in both triangles of the first prism, it also has two neighbours in the triangles of the second. This proves that $`y`$ is $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant with respect to $`L(H^{})`$. The same argument in the reverse direction shows that $`Y`$ remains a maximal anticonnected set of $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant vertices. Since there is a proper subset $`F^{}`$ of $`F`$ with attachments in $`S`$ and in the new set $`T^{}`$ in $`V(H^{})`$ corresponding to $`T`$ (for $`T^{}`$ contains all the vertices of $`R^{}`$ that are in $`F`$, and there is at least one such vertex), it follows that we may apply the inductive hypothesis. So $`F^{}`$, and hence $`F`$, contains a vertex of $`X`$. This completes the argument when $`b_1b_2`$ and $`c_1c_2`$ are distinct edges.

Now we assume that $`b_i=c_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. There were four cases in the definition of $`P`$, listed above. Case 3 is impossible, since then the vertex $`p_1`$ would be $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant with respect to $`L(H)`$, and therefore would be in either $`X`$ or $`Y`$, a contradiction. Also, case 1 is impossible, by applying 7.4 as before to show that $`Y`$ remains a maximal anticonnected set of $`B^{}`$-dominant vertices, and applying the inductive hypothesis. Case 4 is impossible since $`B_{c_1c_2}`$ has length $`3`$. So case 2 applies; that is, $`p_2`$ is adjacent to all vertices in $`N_{c_2}r_2`$, and to no vertex of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ except possibly $`r_2`$. So $`N_{c_i}^{}=(N_{c_i}\{r_i\})\{r_i^{}\}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. We recall that in this case $`R^{}=P`$, and $`P`$ is a subpath of the path with vertices $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$. Choose $`h`$ with $`1hn`$ minimum so that $`f_h`$ is a vertex of $`R^{}`$. Since both $`R^{}`$ and $`G|F`$ are paths it follows that $`f_h`$ is one end of $`R^{}`$, say $`r_1^{}`$. (This is without loss of generality, because in this case 2, there is symmetry between $`b_1=c_1`$ and $`b_2=c_2`$.) From the minimality of $`F`$, $`r_1^{}`$ has no neighbour in $`T`$, and in particular every vertex in $`N_{c_1}r_1`$ is in $`X`$. We claim also that every vertex of $`N_{c_2}r_2`$ is in $`X`$. For if not, then $`r_2X`$, and by 7.1 there is a prism $`R_{c_1c_2},P_1,P_2`$ say, in $`L(H)`$, where each $`P_i`$ has an end $`a_iN_{c_1}`$ and an end $`b_iN_{c_2}`$, and $`b_2X`$. (Consequently $`r_2,b_1X`$.) Hence at most one vertex of the triangle $`\{r_2^{},b_1,b_2\}`$ is in $`X`$, and some vertex in $`X`$ (namely $`a_1`$) has no neighbour in this triangle, so by 2.8, $`Y`$ cannot be linked onto this triangle. In particular, no vertex of $`P_2`$ is in $`X`$ except $`a_2`$. But then $`a_2\text{-}P_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}r_2`$ is an odd path between members of $`X`$, and none of its internal vertices are in $`X`$, and $`a_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves that every vertex of $`N_{c_2}r_2`$ is in $`X`$. Consequently all vertices of $`Y`$ are $`B^{}`$-dominant with respect to $`L(H^{})`$. We claim also that $`Y`$ is still maximal. For suppose not, and let $`YY^{}`$ for some larger anticonnected set $`Y^{}`$ of $`B^{}`$-dominant vertices. Since $`r_1^{},r_2^{}`$ are not in $`X`$, they are certainly not $`Y^{}`$-complete, and since by (1) applied to $`Y^{}`$, at most one vertex of $`N_{c_i}^{}`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete for $`i=1,2`$, it follows that every vertex of $`N_{c_1}^{}r_1^{}`$ and $`N_{c_2}^{}r_2^{}`$ are $`Y^{}`$-complete. But then all the members of $`Y^{}`$ are $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant with respect to $`L(H)`$, contrary to the maximality of $`Y`$. This proves that $`Y`$ is a maximal anticonnected set of $`B^{}`$-dominant vertices with respect to $`L(H^{})`$. Hence we can apply induction on $`F`$, and the result follows. This proves (2).

It follows from (2) that there is a partition of $`V(G)(X_0X_1Y)`$ into two sets $`L`$ and $`M`$ say, where there is no edge between $`L`$ and $`M`$, and $`SL`$ and $`TM`$. So $`(LM,X_0X_1Y)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. By 4.2 we may assume it is not loose, and so $`X_2`$ is empty; and we shall show it is balanced.
(3) For $`i=1,2`$, all vertices of $`N_{c_i}r_i`$ belong to $`X_1`$.
For suppose there is a vertex $`n_1`$ of $`N_{c_1}r_1`$ not in $`X`$. Therefore all other vertices of $`N_{c_1}`$ belong to $`X`$, and in particular, $`r_1X`$. Suppose no other vertex of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ is in $`X`$; then $`r_2X`$, so $`X`$ includes $`N_{c_2}r_2`$. Choose any $`n_2N_{c_2}r_2`$, and any $`n_1^{}N_{c_1}r_1`$ different from $`n_1`$. Then $`r_1\text{-}R_{c_1c_2}\text{-}r_2\text{-}n_2`$ is an odd path between $`Y`$-complete vertices, and none of its internal vertices are $`Y`$-complete, and yet $`n_1^{}`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves that some vertex of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ different from $`r_1`$ is in $`X`$; yet $`X_2`$ is empty, so the interior of $`R_{c_1c_2}`$ contains no vertex in $`X`$. Consequently $`r_2X`$. Choose $`n_2N_{c_2}r_2`$ so that $`N_{c_2}n_2X`$. Since $`J`$ is 3-connected, there is a track of $`H`$ from $`c_1`$ to $`c_2`$ with first edge $`n_1`$ and last edge different from $`n_2`$. This track is odd since $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ have opposite biparity; and so in $`G`$ there is an even path, $`P`$ say, from $`n_1`$ to some $`n_2^{}N_{c_2}n_2`$, with no vertex in $`N_{c_1}N_{c_2}`$ except its ends. But then $`r_1\text{-}n_1\text{-}P\text{-}n_2^{}`$ is an odd path between $`Y`$-complete vertices, no vertex in its interior is $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`r_2`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves (3).

Let $`W=(N_{c_1}r_1)(N_{c_2}r_2)`$. Then $`WX_1`$ by (3), and since there are no edges between $`N_{c_1}`$ and $`N_{c_2}`$, it follows that $`W`$ has exactly two components, both cliques. In particular, $`W`$ is anticonnected. Now every $`W`$-complete vertex is $`B_{c_1c_2}`$-dominant, and so belongs to $`XY`$; and hence there are no $`W`$-complete vertices in $`LM`$. Consequently $`W`$ is a kernel for the skew partition. Suppose $`u_1,u_2W`$ are nonadjacent and joined by an odd path with interior in $`L`$. Then one of $`u_1,u_2`$ is in $`N_{c_1}r_1`$ and the other in $`N_{c_2}r_2`$, and therefore they are joined by a path in $`L(H)`$ using no more vertices in $`N_{c_1}N_{c_2}`$, which is even (since $`H`$ is bipartite). But this contradicts 4.3, and so there are no such $`u_1,u_2`$. Finally, suppose there is a pair of vertices of $`L`$ joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`W`$, necessarily of length $`5`$ (since we already did the odd path case). Then $`G|W`$ contains an antipath of length 3, which is impossible since its components are cliques. From 4.6 it follows that the skew partition is balanced. This proves 7.5.

## 8 Generalized line graphs

As we said earlier, our strategy is to find the biggest line graph in $`G`$ that we can, and then assemble all the alternative rungs for a given edge of $`J`$ into a “strip”. In this section we make that precise.

Let $`J`$ be 3-connected, and let $`G`$ be Berge. A $`J`$-strip system $`(S,N)`$ in $`G`$ means:

* for each edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$, a subset $`S_{uv}=S_{vu}V(G)`$
* for each vertex $`v`$ of $`J`$, a subset $`N_vV(G)`$

satisfying the following conditions (for $`uvE(J)`$, a $`uv`$-rung  means a path $`R`$ of $`G`$ with ends $`s,t`$ say, where $`V(R)S_{uv}`$, and $`s`$ is the unique vertex of $`R`$ in $`N_u`$, and $`t`$ is the unique vertex of $`R`$ in $`N_v`$):

* The sets $`S_{uv}(uvE(J))`$ are pairwise disjoint
* For each $`uV(J)`$, $`N_u(S_{uv}:vV(J)`$ adjacent to $`u)`$
* For each $`uvE(J)`$, every vertex of $`S_{uv}`$ is in a $`uv`$-rung
* If $`uv,wxE(J)`$ with $`u,v,w,x`$ all distinct, then there are no edges between $`S_{uv}`$ and $`S_{wx}`$
* If $`uv,uwE(J)`$ with $`vw`$, then $`N_uS_{uv}`$ is complete to $`N_uS_{uw}`$, and there are no other edges between $`S_{uv}`$ and $`S_{uw}`$
* For each $`uvE(J)`$ there is a $`uv`$-rung so that for every cycle $`C`$ of $`J`$, the sum of the lengths of the $`uv`$-rungs for $`uvE(C)`$ has the same parity as $`|V(C)|`$.

It follows that for distinct $`u,vV(J)`$, $`N_uN_v`$ is empty if $`u`$,$`v`$ are nonadjacent, and otherwise $`N_uN_vS_{uv}`$; and for $`uvE(J)`$ and $`wV(J)`$, if $`wu,v`$ then $`S_{uv}N_w=\mathrm{}`$. The final axiom looks strange, but we shall show immediately that the same property holds for every choice of $`uv`$-rungs.

###### 8.1

If $`(S,N)`$ is a $`J`$-strip system in a Berge graph $`G`$, where $`J`$ is 3-connected. Then for every $`uvE(J)`$, all $`uv`$-rungs have lengths of the same parity.

Proof. Since $`J`$ is 3-connected, there is a cycle $`C`$ of $`J`$ with $`|V(C)|4`$ and with $`uvE(C)`$. For each $`xyE(C)`$ different from $`uv`$, choose an $`xy`$-rung $`R_{xy}`$. For every $`uv`$-rung $`R`$, the union of $`V(R)`$ and all the $`V(R_{xy})`$’s induces a cycle in $`G`$. This has length $`4`$ since $`C`$ has length $`4`$, so it is a hole and therefore even. Hence all choices of $`R`$ have lengths of the same parity. This proves 8.1.

For each edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$, choose a $`uv`$-rung $`R_{uv}`$. It follows from 8.1 and the final axiom above that the subgraph of $`G`$ induced on the union of the vertex sets of these rungs is a line graph of a bipartite subdivision $`H`$ of $`J`$. For brevity we say that this choice of rungs forms $`L(H)`$.

We need two easy observations:

###### 8.2

Let $`(S,N)`$ be a $`J`$-strip system in a Berge graph $`G`$, where $`J`$ is 3-connected. If there is an edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$ so that some $`uv`$-rung has length 0 and another $`uv`$-rung has length $`1`$, then there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$.

Proof. For each edge $`ij`$ of $`J`$ choose an $`ij`$-rung $`R_{ij}`$, so that $`R_{uv}`$ has length $`1`$ and otherwise arbitrarily; and let this choice of rungs form $`L(H)`$. Let $`y`$ be the vertex of some $`uv`$-rung of length 0. By 8.1, $`R_{uv}`$ has even length. Let $`B`$ be the branch of $`H`$ between $`u`$ and $`v`$, so $`E(B)=V(R_{uv})`$. Then $`B`$ is odd and has length $`3`$ and $`y`$ is nonadjacent in $`G`$ to at most one vertex of $`G`$ in $`\delta _H(u)`$ and at most one in $`\delta _H(v)`$. Hence $`L(H)`$ is overshadowed. This proves 8.2.

A $`J`$-strip system is nondegenerate if there is some choice of rungs so that the line graph $`L(H)`$ they form is a nondegenerate appearance of $`J`$. 8.2 has the following corollary:

###### 8.3

Let $`(S,N)`$ be a nondegenerate $`J`$-strip system in a Berge graph $`G`$, where $`J`$ is 3-connected. If there is no overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, then for every choice of rungs, the line graph they form is a nondegenerate appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$.

Proof. Take a choice of rungs $`R_{ij}(ijE(J))`$, forming $`L(H)`$ say, where $`L(H)`$ is nondegenerate; and suppose there is another choice, $`R_{ij}^{}(ijE(J))`$, forming $`L(H^{})`$ say, where $`L(H^{})`$ is degenerate. Then for some $`ijE(J)`$, $`R_{ij}`$ has nonzero length and $`R_{ij}^{}`$ has length 0. By 8.2 there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$. This proves 8.3.

Given a $`J`$-strip system $`(S,N)`$, we define $`V(S,N)=(S_{uv}:uvE(J))`$. Hence every $`N_vV(S,N)`$. If $`u,vV(J)`$ are adjacent, we define $`N_{uv}=N_uS_{uv}`$. So every vertex of $`N_u`$ belongs to $`N_{uv}`$ for exactly one $`v`$. Note that $`N_{uv}`$ is in general different from $`N_{vu}`$, but $`S_{uv}`$ and $`S_{vu}`$ mean the same thing. We say $`XV(S,N)`$ saturates the strip system if for every $`uV(J)`$, there is at most one neighbour $`v`$ of $`u`$ in $`J`$ so that $`N_{uv}X`$; and a vertex $`yV(G)V(S,N)`$ is major (with respect to the strip system) if the set of its neighbours in $`V(S,N)`$ saturates $`(S,N)`$. We say $`XV(S,N)`$ is local (with respect to the strip system) if either $`XN_v`$ for some $`vV(J)`$, or $`XS_{uv}`$ for some edge $`uvE(J)`$.

###### 8.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, and let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph. Let $`(S,N)`$ be a $`J`$-strip system in $`G`$, nondegenerate if $`J=K_4`$. Let $`yV(G)V(S,N)`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of neighbours of $`y`$. If there is a choice of rungs, forming a line graph $`L(H)`$, so that $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, then either:

* $`X`$ saturates the strip system, or
* there is a $`J`$-enlargement with a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, or
* $`J=K_4`$ and there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$.

Proof. We define the fork number of a choice of rungs to be the number of branch-vertices of $`H`$ incident in $`H`$ with $`2`$ edges in $`XE(H)`$, where $`L(H)`$ is the line graph formed by this choice of rungs. Let us say that a choice of rungs $`R_{ij}`$ forming a line graph $`L(H)`$ is saturated if $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, and in this case its fork number is $`|V(J)|`$. If every choice of rungs is saturated, then $`X`$ saturates the strip system as required, so we may therefore assume that there is some choice of rungs that is not saturated. Let this choice of rungs form $`L(H)`$, and let us apply 5.9 to $`L(H)`$. Hence 5.9.1 is false; suppose that 5.9.6 holds. Then $`G|(V(L(H))\{y\})=L(H^{})`$, and $`L(H^{})`$ is an appearance in $`G`$ of a $`J`$-enlargement. We may assume that $`L(H^{})`$ is degenerate, for otherwise the theorem holds. Hence $`J=K_4`$ and $`L(H)`$ is degenerate. Since the strip system is nondegenerate, the result follows from 8.3. So we may assume that one of 5.9.2-5 holds. Hence for any nonsaturated choice of rungs, the fork number is $`2`$. Now there are two choices of rungs $`R_{ij}(ijE(J))`$ and $`R_{ij}^{}(ijE(J))`$, so that the first is saturated and the second is not, differing only on one edge of $`J`$; say $`R_{ij}=R_{ij}^{}`$ for all edges $`ij`$ of $`J`$ except the edge $`1\text{-}2`$. Since these two choices of rungs differ only on one edge of $`J`$, their fork numbers differ by at most 2; and so $`|V(J)|=4`$, and so $`J=K_4`$.

Let $`V(J)=\{1,2,3,4\}`$, and $`R_{ij}R_{ij}^{}`$ only for the edge $`1\text{-}2`$. As usual, the ends of each $`R_{ij}`$ will be denoted by $`r_{ij}`$ and $`r_{ji}`$, and the ends of each $`R_{ij}^{}`$ will be denoted by $`r_{ij}^{}`$ and $`r_{ji}^{}`$. For $`i=1,2,3,4`$, we denote the triangle $`\{r_{ij}:j\{1,\mathrm{},4\}i\}`$ by $`T_i`$, and the triangle $`\{r_{ij}^{}:j\{1,\mathrm{},4\}i\}`$ by $`T_i^{}`$. The line graphs made by $`R_{ij}`$ and $`R_{ij}^{}`$ are $`L(H)`$ and $`L(H^{})`$ respectively. Since $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, it has at least two members in each of $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_4`$; and since $`X`$ does not saturate $`L(H^{})`$, there is some $`T_i^{}`$ containing at most one member of $`X`$. Since $`T_3=T_3^{}`$ and $`T_4=T_4^{}`$, we may assume that $`|XT_1|=2`$ and $`|XT_1^{}|=1`$; and so $`r_{1,2}X`$, $`r_{1,2}^{}X`$, and exactly one of $`r_{1,3},r_{1,4}X`$, say $`r_{1,3}X`$ and $`r_{1,4}X`$.

Also, at least two vertices of $`T_3`$ and $`T_4`$ are in $`X`$, so there are at least two branch-vertices of $`H^{}`$ incident in $`H^{}`$ with more than one edge in $`X`$. By 5.9 applied to $`H^{}`$, we deduce that 5.9.5 holds, and so there is an edge $`ij`$ of $`J`$ so that $`R_{ij}^{}`$ is even and

$$(XV(L(H^{})))V(R_{ij}^{})=(T_i^{}T_j^{})V(R_{ij}^{}).$$

In particular, $`T_i^{}`$ and $`T_j^{}`$ both contain at least two vertices in $`X`$, and so $`i,j2`$. Since $`r_{1,3}X`$ it follows that one of $`i,j=3`$, say $`j=3`$, and $`r_{1,3}T_3`$; so $`R_{1,3}`$ has length 0. Now there are two cases, $`i=2`$ and $`i=4`$. Suppose first that $`i=2`$. Then

$$(XV(L(H^{})))V(R_{2,3})=\{r_{1,3},r_{3,4},r_{2,4},r_{2,1}^{}\},$$

and since at least two vertices of $`T_4`$ are in $`X`$ it follows that $`R_{2,4},R_{3,4}`$ both have length 0, a contradiction since $`R_{ij}^{}=R_{2,3}`$ is even. So $`i=4`$, and hence $`R_{3,4}`$ is even and

$$(XV(L(H^{})))V(R_{3,4})=\{r_{3,1},r_{4,1},r_{3,2},r_{4,2}\}.$$

Since the path $`r_{3,2}\text{-}R_{2,3}\text{-}r_{2,3}\text{-}r_{2,4}\text{-}R_{2,4}\text{-}r_{4,2}`$ can be completed to a hole via $`r_{4,2}\text{-}r_{4,3}\text{-}R_{3,4}\text{-}r_{3,4}\text{-}r_{3,2}`$, it follows that the first path is even, and so exactly one of $`R_{2,3},R_{2,4}`$ is odd; and since the same path can be completed to a hole via $`r_{4,2}\text{-}r_{4,1}\text{-}R_{1,4}\text{-}r_{1,4}\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}r_{3,2}`$ it follows that $`R_{1,4}`$ is odd. Since one of $`R_{2,3},R_{2,4}`$ is odd, they do not both have length 0, and hence at most one of $`r_{2,3},r_{2,4}X`$. Since $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$, it follows that exactly one of $`r_{2,3},r_{2,4}X`$ (and hence one of $`R_{2,3},R_{2,4}`$ has length 0), and also that $`r_{2,1}X`$. Since no vertex of $`R_{1,2}^{}`$ is in $`X`$, this restores the symmetry between $`T_1^{}`$ and $`T_2^{}`$.

Suppose that $`R_{2,3}`$ has length 0. Then $`R_{2,4}`$ and $`R_{1,2}`$ are odd, and in particular $`r_{2,1}r_{1,2}`$. If $`r_{2,1}`$ has no neighbour in $`R_{1,2}^{}`$, then $`y\text{-}r_{2,1}\text{-}r_{2,4}\text{-}r_{2,1}^{}\text{-}R_{1,2}^{}\text{-}r_{1,2}^{}\text{-}r_{1,4}\text{-}R_{1,4}\text{-}r_{4,1}\text{-}y`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. So $`r_{2,1}`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{1,2}^{}`$; but then $`y`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`T_1^{}`$ via $`R_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`R_{1,4}`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves that $`R_{2,3}`$ has length $`1`$. Hence $`R_{2,3}`$ has odd length and $`R_{2,4}`$ has length 0, and consequently $`R_{1,2}`$, $`R_{3,4}`$ have even length and $`R_{1,4}`$ is odd. If $`R_{3,4}`$ has positive length then $`L(H)`$ is overshadowed (because of the vertex $`y`$), and so the theorem holds. We may therefore assume that $`R_{3,4}`$ has length 0. If $`r_{2,1}r_{1,2}`$ and $`r_{2,1}`$ has no neighbour in $`R_{1,2}^{}`$, then $`y\text{-}r_{2,1}\text{-}r_{2,4}\text{-}r_{2,1}^{}\text{-}R_{1,2}^{}\text{-}r_{1,2}^{}\text{-}r_{1,3}\text{-}y`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction; while if $`r_{2,1}r_{1,2}`$ and $`r_{2,1}`$ has a neighbour in $`R_{1,2}^{}`$, then then $`y`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`T_1^{}`$ via $`R_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`R_{1,4}`$, contrary to 2.4. So $`r_{2,1}=r_{1,2}`$. But then $`L(H)`$ is degenerate. Since the strip system is nondegenerate, it follows from 8.3 that there is an overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. This proves 8.4.

A $`J`$-strip system $`(S,N)`$ in $`G`$ is maximal if there is no $`J`$-strip system $`(S^{},N^{})`$ in $`G`$ such that $`V(S,N)V(S^{},N^{})`$, and $`S_{uv}^{}V(S,N)=S_{uv}`$ for every $`uvE(J)`$, and $`N_vN_v^{}`$ for every $`vV(J)`$. We need to analyze maximal strip systems. For an edge $`uvE(J)`$, we call the set $`S_{uv}`$ a strip of the strip system.

###### 8.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge, let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph, and let $`(S,N)`$ be a maximal $`J`$-strip system in $`G`$. Assume that either:

* $`(S,N)`$ is nondegenerate, and there is no $`J`$-enlargement with a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, or
* $`J=K_{3,3}`$, and there is no $`J`$-enlargement that appears in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$.

Let $`FV(G)V(S,N)`$ be connected and contain no vertices that are major with respect to $`(S,N)`$. Then either $`J=K_4`$ and there is an overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, or the set of the attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(S,N)`$ is local.

Proof. We may assume that if $`J=K_4`$ then there is no overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$. Let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(S,N)`$, and we suppose for a contradiction that $`X`$ is not local. We may assume that $`F`$ is minimal (connected) with this property.
(1) For every choice of rungs, forming $`L(H)`$ say:

* for each $`yF`$, the set of neighbours of $`y`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$, and
* if $`J=K_4`$ then $`L(H)`$ is not degenerate.

For no $`yF`$ is major with respect to the strip system, and no $`J`$-enlargement has a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, and there is no overshadowed appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$, so the first claim follows from 8.4. For the second claim, assume $`J=K_4`$; then by hypothesis, the strip system is not degenerate, and the claim follows from 8.3. This proves (1).
(2) There is no $`vV(J)`$ so that $`X(S_{uv}:uvE(J))`$.
For assume that $`v`$ is such a vertex. Since $`X`$ is not local, there exists $`xXS_{uv}N_v`$ for some edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$. Since $`XS_{uv}`$, there exists $`x^{}XS_{u^{}v}`$ for some edge $`u^{}v`$ of $`J`$ with $`u^{}u`$. For $`wV(J)`$, $`x`$ belongs to $`N_w`$ only if $`w=u`$, and $`x^{}`$ belongs to $`N_w`$ only if $`w\{v,u^{}\}`$; and since $`x,x^{}`$ do not belong to the same strip it follows that $`\{x,x^{}\}`$ is not local with respect to the strip system. Make a choice of rungs $`R_{ij}`$ ($`ijE(J)`$) so that $`xV(R_{uv})`$ and $`x^{}V(R_{u^{}v})`$, forming $`L(H)`$. Then $`\{x,x^{}\}`$ is not local with respect to $`L(H)`$, so by (1) we can apply 5.10. Suppose that 5.10.1 holds. Then there is an appearance $`L(H^{})`$ in $`G`$ of some $`J`$-enlargement $`J^{}`$, with $`L(H)`$ an induced subgraph of $`L(H^{})`$. Moreover, if $`J^{}=K_{3,3}`$ then $`J=K_4`$, and so $`L(H)`$ is nondegenerate and therefore so is $`L(H^{})`$. Since $`J^{}K_4`$ it follows that $`L(H^{})`$ is nondegenerate, contrary to hypothesis. So 5.10.1 does not hold, and hence 5.10.2.a holds, and there is a branch $`D`$ of $`H`$ with an end $`d`$ so that $`\delta _H(d)E(D)=(XE(H))E(D)`$. Since $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are disjoint edges in $`XE(H)`$, they are not both incident with $`d`$, and so one of them is in $`E(Dd)`$. The branch containing $`x^{}`$ does not meet $`x`$, so $`D`$ is the branch between $`u`$ and $`v`$, and $`d=v`$. Hence $`x^{}`$ is incident with $`v`$ in $`H`$, and $`\delta _H(v)XE(D)`$. Consequently, for all neighbours $`wu`$ of $`v`$ in $`J`$, $`X`$ contains the vertex of $`R_{vw}`$ that belongs to $`N_v`$, and contains no other vertex of $`R_{vw}`$. This restores the symmetry between $`u^{}`$ and the other neighbours of $`v`$ different from $`u`$; and since it holds for all choices of the rungs $`R_{vw}`$, we deduce that $`XS_{uv}=N_vS_{uv}`$. The minimality of $`F`$ implies that there is a path $`P`$ with $`V(P)=F`$, with ends $`p_1,p_2`$ so that $`p_1`$ is complete to $`N_vN_{vu}`$, and no other vertex of $`P`$ has any neighbours in $`N_vN_{vu}`$, and $`p_2`$ is adjacent to $`x`$, and no other vertex of $`P`$ has any neighbours in $`S_{uv}N_v`$. But then we can add $`p_1`$ to $`N_v`$ and $`F`$ to $`S_{uv}`$, contradicting the maximality of $`(S,N)`$. This proves (2).

Let $`K=\{uvE(J):XS_{uv}\mathrm{}\}`$.
(3) There are two disjoint edges in $`K`$.
For make a choice of rungs $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) so that $`XV(R_{uv})\mathrm{}`$ for each $`uvK`$, forming $`L(H)`$. If there are no two disjoint edges in $`K`$, then by (1) and 5.10, it follows that either $`XV(L(H))`$ is local (with respect to $`L(H)`$) or 5.10.2.a holds, and in either case there is a branch $`D`$ of $`H`$ with an end $`d`$ so that every edge of $`XE(H)`$ either is in $`E(D)`$ or is incident with $`d`$. In particular, every branch containing an edge of $`X`$ is incident with $`d`$, and so $`d`$ meets all edges of $`J`$ in $`K`$, contrary to (2). This proves (3).

From (3) it follows that there exists a 2-element subset of $`X`$ that is not local, and so from the minimality of $`F`$ it follows that $`F`$ is the vertex set of a path, say $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$. Let us say a choice $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) of rungs is broad if there are two disjoint edges $`ij`$ and $`hk`$ of $`J`$ so that $`X`$ meets both $`R_{ij}`$ and $`R_{hk}`$. From (3) there is a broad choice. We denote the ends of $`R_{uv}`$ by $`r_{uv}`$ and $`r_{vu}`$, where $`r_{uv}N_u`$ and $`r_{vu}N_v`$.
(4) For every broad choice of rungs $`R_{uv}(uvE(J))`$, there is a unique pair $`(i,j)`$ of adjacent vertices of $`J`$ so that:

* for every $`wV(J)`$ different from $`j`$ and adjacent to $`i`$ in $`J`$, $`r_{iw}f_1`$ is the unique edge of $`G`$ between $`V(R_{iw})`$ and $`F`$,
* for every $`wV(J)`$ different from $`i`$ and adjacent to $`j`$ in $`J`$, $`r_{jw}f_n`$ is the unique edge of $`G`$ between $`V(R_{jw})`$ and $`F`$,
* for every edge $`uv`$ of $`J`$ disjoint from $`ij`$, there are no edges of $`G`$ between $`V(R_{uv})`$ and $`F`$.

For by (1) we can apply 5.10, and since the choice of rungs is broad, the minimality of $`F`$ implies that one of 5.10.2.b, 5.10.2.c, 5.10.2.d holds. Hence there is an edge $`ij`$ as in (4). Suppose there is another, say $`i^{}j^{}`$. Since $`i^{}j^{}`$ meets all edges of $`J`$ that share exactly one end with $`ij`$, and $`J`$ is 3-connected, it follows that $`J=K_4`$ and the two edges $`ij,i^{}j^{}`$ are disjoint. Moreover, the unique vertex of $`R_{ii^{}}`$ in $`X`$ is both $`r_{ii^{}}`$ and $`r_{i^{}i}`$, so $`R_{ii^{}}`$ has length 0. Similarly $`R_{ij^{}},R_{ji^{}},R_{jj^{}}`$ all have length 0, and so $`L(H)`$ is degenerate, contrary to (1). This proves (4).
(5) Every choice of rungs is broad.
For from (3), there is a broad choice, and from (4) in any broad choice $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) there are four different edges $`a_1b_1,\mathrm{},a_4b_4`$ of $`J`$, so that $`a_1b_1`$ is disjoint from $`a_2`$, and $`a_3b_3`$ is disjoint from $`a_4b_4`$, and $`X`$ meets $`R_{a_ib_i}`$ for $`1i4`$. Consequently, if we take another choice of rungs, differing from this one on only one edge, then it too is broad. It follows that every choice is broad. This proves (5).

For a given choice of rungs, let us call the edge $`ij`$ as in (4) the traversal for the choice.
(6) There are two choices of rungs with different traversals.
Take a choice of rungs, and let $`ij`$ be its traversal; and suppose that all other choices of rungs have the same traversal. Let $`A_1=N_iS_{ij}`$, and $`A_2=N_jS_{ij}`$. From (4),(5), and the uniqueness of $`ij`$ it follows that $`X(V(S,N)S_{ij})=A_1A_2`$. Hence $`n2`$, for if $`n=1`$ then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`N_i,N_j`$ and $`S_{ij}`$, contrary to the maximality of the strip system. Choose $`x_1A_1`$ and $`x_2A_2`$ in disjoint strips. From (4), $`x_1`$ is adjacent to exactly one of $`f_1,f_n`$, say $`f_1`$. For any other vertex $`x_3A_2`$, let $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) be a choice of rungs forming $`L(H)`$ say, so that $`x_1,x_3V(H)`$. From (4) and (5) it follows that $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`x_3`$; and so $`f_n`$ is complete to $`A_2`$, and similarly $`f_1`$ is complete to $`A_1`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, there are no other edges between $`F`$ and $`A_1A_2`$; but then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`N_i`$, $`f_n`$ to $`N_j`$, and $`F`$ to $`S_{ij}`$, contrary to the maximality of the strip system. This proves (6).

Let us say a choice $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) is optimal if $`R_{uv}`$ has a vertex in $`X`$ for all edges $`uv`$ in $`K`$. For any choice of rungs, there is an optimal choice with the same traversal (just replace rungs that miss $`X`$ by rungs that meet $`X`$ wherever possible); so (6) implies that there are two optimal choices of rungs with different traversals. Now for any optimal choice of rungs, if $`hi`$ is its traversal, then by (4) and the optimality of the choice, it follows that $`K`$ consists precisely of the edges of $`J`$ with exactly one end in common with $`hi`$, together possibly with $`hi`$ itself. In particular $`hi`$ meets all edges in $`K`$. We may assume that some other edge $`jk`$ is the traversal for some other optimal choice; and hence (since $`J`$ is 3-connected) it follows that $`J=K_4`$ and $`jk`$ is disjoint from $`hi`$, and neither edge is in $`K`$. Hence $`V(J)=\{h,i,j,k\}`$. Now since the strip system is not degenerate, there is one of the four edges $`hj,hk,ij,ik`$ whose strip contains a rung of nonzero length; some $`hj`$-rung $`R`$ has length $`>0`$ say. From (4) it follows that exactly one vertex of $`R`$ is in $`X`$, one of its ends; say the end in $`N_h`$. Let $`R_{uv}`$ ($`uvE(J)`$) be any choice of rungs such that $`R_{hj}=R`$. Since the end of $`R`$ in $`N_j`$ does not belong to $`X`$, it follows from (4) that for each of $`R_{hk},R_{ij},R_{ik}`$, its unique vertex in $`X`$ is its end in $`N_hN_i`$. Since the choice of these rungs was arbitrary, it follows that $`XS_{hk}=N_{hk}`$, $`XS_{ij}=N_{ij}`$, and $`XS_{ik}=N_{ik}`$. If also $`XS_{hj}=N_{hj}`$ then $`hi`$ is the traversal for every choice of rungs, contrary to (6), so $`XS_{hj}N_{hj}`$. It follows that every $`ij`$-rung has length 0; for if one, $`R^{}`$ say, has length $`>0`$, then its unique vertex in $`X`$ is its end in $`N_i`$, and by exchanging $`h`$ and $`i`$ it follows that $`XS_{hj}=N_{hj}`$, a contradiction. Similarly all $`hk`$ and $`ik`$-rungs have length 0, and therefore all $`hj`$-rungs have even length, since $`G`$ is Berge. From (1), we may assume that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`r_{hj}`$ and complete to $`S_{hk}`$, and $`f_n`$ is complete to $`S_{ij}S_{ik}`$, and there are no other edges between $`F`$ and $`S_{hk}S_{ij}S_{ik}\{r_{hj}\}`$. Let $`R^{}`$ be an $`hj`$-rung such that its vertex in $`N_h`$ ($`r_{hj}^{}`$, say) is not its unique vertex in $`X`$. Consequently, its other end ($`r_{jh}^{}`$) is its unique vertex in $`X`$. By the same argument with $`hi`$ and $`jk`$ exchanged, it follows that one of $`f_1,f_n`$ is complete to $`S_{ij}\{r_{jh}^{}\}`$ and the other to $`S_{hk}S_{ik}`$; and hence $`n=1`$. But then the path $`f_1\text{-}r_{hj}\text{-}R_{hj}\text{-}r_{jh}\text{-}r_{ji}\text{-}f_1`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves 8.5.

We are now ready to prove 5.8, which we restate:

###### 8.6

Let $`G`$ be Berge. Let $`J`$ be a 3-connected graph, such that either:

* there is a nondegenerate appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$, and there is no $`J`$-enlargement with a nondegenerate appearance in $`G`$, or
* $`J=K_{3,3}`$, there is an appearance $`L(H)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$, and no $`J`$-enlargement appears in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$.

Then either $`G=L(H)`$, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition.

Proof. If $`J=K_4`$ or $`K_{3,3}`$ and some appearance of $`J`$ in $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$ is overshadowed, the theorem follows from 7.5, so we assume not. Choose an appearance $`L(H_0)`$ of $`J`$ in $`G`$, nondegenerate if possible. From the hypothesis, it follows that if $`L(H_0)`$ is degenerate, then $`J=K_{3,3}`$, and there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_{3,3}`$ in $`G`$, and no $`J`$-enlargement appears in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$. Regard $`L(H_0)`$ as a $`J`$-strip system in the natural way, and enlarge it to a maximal $`J`$-strip system $`(S,N)`$. If $`L(H_0)`$ is nondegenerate then so is the strip system. Let $`Y`$ be the set of vertices in $`V(G)V(S,N)`$ that are major with respect to the strip system, and let $`Z=V(G)(V(S,N)Y)`$. By 8.5, for each component of $`Z`$, its set of attachments in $`V(S,N)`$ is local.
(1) If $`Y\mathrm{}`$ then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.
For let $`Y^{}`$ be an anticomponent of $`Y`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of all $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)`$. For every choice of rungs, forming $`L(H)`$ say, and for every $`yY^{}`$, the set of neighbours of $`y`$ in $`L(H)`$ saturates $`L(H)`$. Since we may assume that $`L(H)`$ is nondegenerate if $`J=K_4`$ (because of 8.3), it follows from 6.2 that $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$. Since this holds for every choice of rungs, it follows that $`X`$ saturates the strip system. Let $`b_1b_2`$ be an edge of $`J`$, chosen if possible so that $`S_{b_1b_2}X`$. Now the sets $`(N_{b_1v}`$: $`b_1vE(J))`$ form a partition of $`N_{b_1}`$ into say $`m`$ sets, and at least $`m1`$ of them are subsets of $`X`$. Choose $`m1`$ of them that are subsets of $`X`$, not using $`N_{b_1b_2}`$ if possible (that is, if the other $`m1`$ sets are all subsets of $`X`$), and let their union be $`X_1`$. Define $`X_2N_{b_2}`$ similarly. We note that $`S_{b_1b_2}X_1X_2`$; for if some vertex of $`S_{b_1b_2}`$ is not in $`X`$ then this is clear, while if $`S_{b_1b_2}X`$ then $`V(S,N)X`$ from our choice of $`b_1b_2`$, and then from the way we chose $`X_1`$ it follows that $`X_1S_{b_1b_2}=\mathrm{}`$, and similarly $`X_2S_{b_1b_2}=\mathrm{}`$, and again our claim holds. This proves that $`S_{b_1b_2}X_1X_2`$. Define $`X_3`$ to be the set of vertices in $`XV(S,N)`$ that are not in $`X_1X_2`$, and let $`X_0`$ be the set of vertices of $`X`$ that are not in $`V(S,N)`$. So $`X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3`$ are four disjoint subsets of $`X`$, with union $`X`$. Note that $`YY^{}X_0`$. Let $`B`$ be the union of all components of $`G(Y^{}X_0X_1X_2)`$ that have nonempty intersection with $`V(L(H))S_{b_1b_2}`$, and let $`A`$ be the union of all the other components. We claim that $`B`$ is nonempty; for there is an edge $`c_1c_2`$ of $`J`$ disjoint from $`b_1b_2`$, and no vertex of $`S_{c_1c_2}`$ is in $`N_{b_1}N_{b_2}S_{b_1b_2}`$, and therefore no vertex of $`S_{c_1c_2}`$ is in $`Y^{}X_0X_1X_2`$. Suppose that $`A`$ is also nonempty. Then $`(AB,Y^{}X_0X_1X_2)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. By 4.2 we may assume it is not loose; and so $`X_3`$ is empty (since any vertex of $`X_3`$ is in $`AB`$ and yet is complete to $`Y^{}`$). In particular, $`XV(L(H))N_{b_1}N_{b_2}`$. Since $`XV(L(H))`$ saturates the strip system, it follows that for every vertex $`w`$ of $`J`$ different from $`b_1,b_2`$, $`w`$ has at most one neighbour in $`J`$ different from $`b_1,b_2`$, and $`w`$ is adjacent in $`J`$ to both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, and all $`wb_1`$ and $`wb_2`$-rungs have length 0. Since $`J`$ is 3-connected it follows that $`J=K_4`$; but then the strip system is not nondegenerate, a contradiction. So in this case the theorem holds. We may therefore assume that $`A`$ is empty. Now we already saw that $`S_{b_1b_2}X_1X_2`$. Since $`A`$ is empty, it follows that there is a path of $`G`$ between $`S_{b_1b_2}`$ and $`V(L(H))S_{b_1b_2}`$, disjoint from $`Y^{}X_0X_1X_2`$. Choose such a path, minimal. From the choice of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ this path has a nonempty interior; from its minimality, none of its internal vertices belong to $`L(H)`$; since all major vertices are in $`Y^{}X_0`$, its interior contains no major vertices; by 8.5, the set of attachments of its interior is local; yet its ends are both attachments of its interior, so there exist $`uS_{b_1b_2}`$ and $`vV(L(H))S_{b_1b_2}`$, so that $`u,vX_1X_2`$, and yet $`\{u,v\}`$ is local. Now $`u,v`$ do not lie in the same strip, and therefore there is some $`N_w`$ containing them both; and the only $`wV(J)`$ with $`uN_w`$ are $`b_1,b_2`$, so we may assume that $`u,vN_{b_1}`$. Since they are not in $`X_1`$, and not in the same strip, this is impossible. This proves (1).

We may therefore assume that $`Y`$ is empty.
(2) If there is a component $`F`$ of $`Z`$ so that for some $`vV(J)`$, all attachments of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$ belong to $`N_v`$, then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.
For let $`F^{}=V(G)(FN_v)`$; then $`F^{}\mathrm{}`$, and every path in $`G`$ from $`F`$ to $`F^{}`$ meets $`N_v`$. Since $`N_v`$ is not anticonnected, it follows that $`FF^{},N_v)`$ is a skew partition. By 4.2 we may assume it is not loose; and we will prove that it is balanced. Let the neighbours of $`v`$ in $`J`$ be $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_k`$; then every anticomponent of $`N_v`$ is a subset of one of $`N_{vu_1},\mathrm{},N_{vu_k}`$. Choose a neighbour $`w`$ of $`u_1`$ in $`J`$ different from $`v,u_2`$, choose $`n_1N_{u_1w}`$, and choose $`n_2N_{vu_2}`$. Then $`n_1,n_2`$ belong to strips $`S_{u_1w},S_{vu_2}`$, where $`u_1w,vu_2`$ are disjoint edges of $`J`$; and so $`n_1,n_2`$ are not adjacent in $`G`$. Let $`K=\{n_1\}S_{vu_1}N_{vu_1}`$. Then $`K`$ is connected (since every vertex of $`S_{vu_1}`$ is in a $`vu_1`$-rung and $`n_1`$ is complete to $`N_{u_1v}`$), every vertex in $`N_{vu_1}`$ has a neighbour in $`K`$ (for the same reason), and $`n_2`$ is not in $`K`$ and has no neighbour in $`K`$. (For the last claim, $`n_2`$ is not in $`K`$ since it is in only one strip; and it has no neighbour in $`S_{vu_1}N_{vu_1}`$ from the definition of a strip system; and it is not adjacent to $`n_1`$ as we already saw.) By 2.6, $`(K,N_{u_1v})`$ is balanced, and so by 2.7.1, so is $`(K,F)`$. By 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. This proves (2).

We assume therefore that there are no such components $`F`$ of $`Z`$. Consequently, for every component $`F`$ of $`Z`$, there is an edge $`b_1b_2`$ of $`J`$ so that all the attachments of $`F`$ in $`L(H)`$ are in $`S_{b_1b_2}`$. If $`Z`$ is empty and for all $`b_1b_2`$ there is only one $`b_1b_2`$-rung, then $`G=L(H)`$ and the theorem holds. So we may assume that there is an edge $`b_1b_2`$ of $`J`$ such that either there is more than one $`b_1b_2`$-rung in $`S_{b_1b_2}`$ or there is a component $`F`$ of $`Z`$ with all its attachments in $`S_{b_1b_2}`$. Let $`A`$ be the union of $`S_{b_1b_2}`$ and any components of $`Z`$ that have an attachment in $`S_{b_1b_2}`$ (and which therefore have attachments only in $`S_{b_1b_2}`$), and $`B=V(G)A`$. Let $`A_1=N_{b_1b_2}`$, $`A_2=N_{b_2b_1}`$, $`B_1=N_{b_1}N_{b_1b_2}`$, and $`B_2=N_{b_2}N_{b_2b_1}`$. Then $`A_1,A_2A`$, and $`B_1,B_2`$ are disjoint subsets of $`B`$, and for $`i=1,2`$ $`A_i`$ is complete to $`B_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`A`$ and $`B`$. Also $`|B_1|2`$, and we chose $`b_1b_2`$ so that if $`A_1,A_2`$ both have only one vertex then $`A`$ is not the vertex set of a path joining them. Since we may assume that $`G`$ does not admit a 2-join, it follows that $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}`$. Choose $`aA_1A_2`$. Then $`a`$ is complete to $`B_1B_2`$, and since $`|A|2`$, it follows that $`((B(B_1B_2))(Aa),B_1B_2\{a\})`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Since $`\{a\}`$ is an anticomponent of $`B_1B_2\{a\}`$, 4.1 implies that $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. This proves 5.8.

## 9 Bicographs

In this section we handle degenerate appearances of $`K_4`$. There is another way to view them, not as line graphs but as sets of paths and antipaths with certain properties, as we shall see.

Let $`P_1,P_2`$ be paths in a graph $`G`$, and let $`Q_1,Q_2`$ be antipaths. Suppose that $`P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2`$ are pairwise disjoint, and we can label the ends of each $`P_i`$ as $`a_i,b_i`$, and label the ends of each $`Q_j`$ as $`x_j,y_j`$, so that:

* $`P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2`$ all have length $`1`$
* there are no edges between $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, and $`Q_1`$ is complete to $`Q_2`$
* for $`(i,j)=(1,1),(1,2)`$ or $`(2,1)`$, the only edges between $`V(P_i)`$ and $`\{x_j,y_j\}`$ are $`a_ix_j`$ and $`b_iy_j`$, and the only edges between $`V(P_2)`$ and $`\{x_2,y_2\}`$ are $`a_2y_2`$ and $`b_2x_2`$,
* for $`(i,j)=(1,1),(1,2)`$ or $`(2,1)`$, the only nonedges between $`V(Q_j)`$ and $`\{a_i,b_i\}`$ are $`a_iy_j`$ and $`b_ix_j`$, and the only nonedges between $`V(Q_2)`$ and $`\{a_2,b_2\}`$ are $`a_2x_2`$ and $`b_2y_2`$.

In these circumstances we call the quadruple $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ a knot in $`G`$. Note that if $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a knot then so is $`(P_2,P_1,Q_1,Q_2)`$, with a suitable relabelling of the ends of the paths and antipaths.

If $`L(H)`$ is a degenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, it can be viewed as a knot. For, in our usual notation, let $`R_{1,3},R_{1,4},R_{2,3},R_{2,4}`$ have length 0; let $`P_1=R_{1,2}`$, $`P_2=R_{3,4}`$, let $`Q_1`$ be the antipath $`r_{1,3}\text{-}r_{2,4}`$, and $`Q_2`$ the antipath $`r_{1,4}\text{-}r_{2,3}`$. It is easy to check that this is a knot. In fact, this and its complement are the only knots in Berge graphs, as the next theorem shows.

###### 9.1

Let $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ be a knot in a Berge graph $`G`$. Then all four of $`P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2`$ have odd length; and either both $`P_1,P_2`$ have length 1, or both $`Q_1,Q_2`$ have length 1.

Proof. Certainly $`P_1`$ is odd since $`x_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}y_2\text{-}x_1`$ is a hole, and similarly the other three are odd. Suppose one of $`P_1,P_2`$ has length $`>1`$ and one of $`Q_1,Q_2`$ has length $`>1`$. By exchanging $`P_1,P_2`$ or $`Q_1,Q_2`$ we may therefore assume that $`P_1,Q_1`$ both have length $`>1`$. Let $`Y`$ be the interior of $`Q_1`$. Then $`a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, from the last condition in the definition of a knot, and since $`a_2`$ has no neighbours in the interior of $`P_1`$ it follows from 2.2 that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex ($`v`$ say) in the interior of $`P_1`$. But $`x_1,y_1`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, and they are adjacent, so $`a_1\text{-}x_1\text{-}y_1\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd path between $`Y`$-complete vertices and $`v`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves 9.1.

Nevertheless, it turns out to be advantageous to make only limited use of 9.1; it is better to preserve the symmetry between the paths and the antipaths.

Let $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ be a knot in a Berge graph $`G`$; we define $`K`$ to be the subgraph of $`G`$ induced on $`V(P_1)V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$. (For brevity we say that the knot induces $`K`$.) We say a subset $`XV(K)`$ is local (with respect to the knot) if $`X`$ is disjoint from one of $`V(P_1),V(P_2)`$, and $`X`$ includes neither of $`V(Q_1),V(Q_2)`$, and $`X(V(P_1)V(P_2))`$ is complete to $`X(V(Q_1)V(Q_2))`$. We say $`X`$ resolves the knot if $`V(K)X`$ is local with respect to the knot $`(Q_1,Q_2,P_1,P_2)`$ in $`\overline{G}`$; that is, if $`X`$ includes one of $`V(Q_1),V(Q_2)`$, and $`X`$ meets both $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, and $`X`$ contains at least one end of every edge between $`V(P_1)V(P_2)`$ and $`V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$. Conveniently, these definitions almost agree with what we did for line graphs, because of the following.

###### 9.2

Let $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ be a knot in a graph $`G`$, inducing $`K`$, where $`Q_1,Q_2`$ both have length 1, and so $`K=L(H)`$ is an appearance of $`K_4`$. Let $`XV(K)`$. Then:

* $`X`$ is local with respect to the knot if and only if it is local with respect to $`L(H)`$
* $`X`$ resolves the knot if and only if $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$ and $`X`$ meets both $`V(P_1)`$ and $`V(P_2)`$.

The proof is obvious and we omit it. This allows us to unify some portions of 5.10 and 6.2, as follows.

###### 9.3

Let $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ be a knot in a Berge graph $`G`$, inducing $`K`$. Assume that there is no appearance in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$ of any $`K_4`$-enlargement, and there is no overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$. Let $`F`$ be a connected subset of $`V(G)V(K)`$, such that its set of attachments in $`K`$ is not local. Then either:

1. there is a vertex in $`F`$ such that its neighbour set in $`K`$ resolves the knot, or
2. (up to symmetry) there is a path $`R`$ in $`F`$ with ends $`r_1,r_2`$ such that $`r_1,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and there are no edges between $`Rr_1`$ and $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and $`r_2`$ has a neighbour in $`P_1a_1`$, and there are no edges between $`Rr_2`$ and $`P_1a_1`$, or
3. (up to symmetry) there is an odd path $`R`$ in $`F`$ with ends $`r_1,r_2`$ such that $`r_1,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and $`r_2,b_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and there are no edges between $`V(R^{})`$ and $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and no edges between $`R`$ and $`P_1`$ except possibly $`r_1a_1`$ and $`r_2b_1`$, or
4. there is a vertex $`fF`$ so that (up to symmetry) $`f,x_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_1)V(P_2)V(Q_2)`$ and $`f`$ is not adjacent to $`y_1`$.

Proof. By 9.1 there are two cases, depending whether $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ have length 1 or $`P_1,P_2`$ have length 1.
(1) If $`Q_1,Q_2`$ have length 1 then the theorem holds.
For assume $`Q_1,Q_2`$ have length 1. Then $`K`$ is a degenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, say $`K=L(H)`$. Suppose that the neighbour set of some $`fF`$ saturates $`L(H)`$. If $`f`$ has a neighbour in both $`V(P_1)`$ and $`V(P_2)`$ then statement 1 of the theorem holds, so we assume it has no neighbour in $`V(P_1)`$. But then $`f`$ is adjacent to all four of $`x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2`$, since it has two neighbours in every triangle of $`K`$, and then $`f\text{-}x_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}y_1\text{-}f`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. So we assume there is no such $`f`$, and hence we may apply 5.10. If 5.10.1 holds then there is an appearance in $`G`$ of some $`K_4`$-enlargement, a contradiction. So 5.10.2 holds. In the notation of 5.10.2, the edge $`b_1b_2`$ of $`J`$ is of one of two types; either $`N_{b_1}`$ meets $`N_{b_2}`$ or it does not. In the first case, we may assume from the symmetry that those two sets are $`\{x_1,y_2,a_2\}`$ and $`\{x_1,x_2,a_1\}`$, and there is a path $`R`$ of $`G`$ with $`V(R)F`$ and with ends $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$, so that $`r_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1,x_2`$, and $`r_2`$ is adjacent to $`a_2,y_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`Kx_1`$. If $`R`$ has length 0 then statement 4 of the theorem holds, while if $`R`$ has length $`>0`$ then it is even and there is an overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, a contradiction. In the second case, one of statements 2 and 3 of the theorem hold. This proves (1).

Henceforth we may therefore assume that one of $`Q_1,Q_2`$ has length $`>1`$, and therefore by 9.1, both $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ have length 1. Hence $`\overline{K}=L(H)`$, where $`L(H)`$ is a degenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`\overline{G}`$.
(2) If there exists $`fF`$ such that $`f`$ is not major with respect to $`L(H)`$ in $`\overline{G}`$, then the theorem holds.
For let $`fF`$ have this property. If the set of neighbours of $`f`$ in $`K`$ resolves the knot $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$, then statement 1 of the theorem holds, so we assume not. Therefore, in $`\overline{G}`$, the set of neighbours of $`f`$ in $`\overline{K}`$ is not local with respect to the knot $`(\overline{Q_1},\overline{Q_2},\overline{P_1},\overline{P_2})`$. But this set does not saturate $`L(H)`$; so we can apply 5.10 (or, indeed, 5.9) to $`\overline{G}`$, and deduce, as before, that either there is a $`K_4`$-enlargement that appears in $`\overline{G}`$ (a contradiction), or (up to symmetry) $`f,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`Ka_1`$ (but then statement 2 of the theorem holds), or (up to symmetry) $`f,x_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_1)V(P_2)V(Q_2)`$ (but then either statement 1 or statement 4 of the theorem holds). This proves (2).

We may therefore assume that every $`fF`$ is major with respect to $`L(H)`$ in $`\overline{G}`$. Let $`X`$ be the set of vertices of $`K`$ which, in $`G`$, have no neighbours in $`F`$. By hypothesis, $`V(K)X`$ is not local with respect to the knot $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ in $`G`$, and hence $`X`$ does not resolve the knot $`(\overline{Q_1},\overline{Q_2},\overline{P_1},\overline{P_2})`$ in $`\overline{G}`$. If $`X`$ does not saturate $`L(H)`$ in $`\overline{G}`$, then by (2) we may apply 6.2. Since $`Q_1`$ has length $`>1`$ it follows that 6.2.2 holds, and hence statement 3 of the theorem holds. We may therefore assume that $`X`$ saturates $`L(H)`$ in $`\overline{G}`$. By 9.2, $`X`$ is disjoint from one of $`V(Q_1),V(Q_2)`$, say $`XV(Q_1)=\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2X`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}y_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}x_1\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd antipath in $`G`$, and its internal vertices all have neighbours in $`F`$, and its ends do not, it follows from 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ that every vertex in $`X`$ has a non-neighbour in $`V(Q_1)`$; and hence no vertex of $`Q_2`$ belongs to $`X`$. This restores the symmetry between $`Q_1,Q_2`$. Now one of $`Q_1,Q_2`$ has length $`>1`$, say $`Q_1`$ without loss of generality. Hence, in $`\overline{G}`$, the path $`a_1\text{-}y_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}x_1\text{-}b_1`$ is odd and has length $`5`$; its ends are complete to $`F`$, and its internal vertices are not. By 2.1, $`F`$ contains a leap; so there exist nonadjacent $`f_1,f_2F`$ such that $`Q_1`$ is the interior of a path $`R`$ between them. (All this is in $`\overline{G}`$ \- we will tell the reader when we switch back to $`G`$.) Now $`f_1,f_2`$ have no common neighbour in $`Q_2`$ (because $`R`$ could be completed to an odd hole through any such common neighbour), so by 2.1, $`f_1,f_2`$ is also a leap for the path $`a_1\text{-}y_2\text{-}Q_2\text{-}x_2\text{-}b_1`$ (this path might have length 3, but still we get a leap by 2.1.3, since $`\{f_1,f_2\}`$ cannot include the interior of any longer antipath between $`x_2`$ and $`y_2`$). Hence from the symmetry we may assume that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`y_1,y_2`$, and $`f_2`$ to $`x_1,x_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,f_2\}`$ and $`V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$. Therefore, back in $`G`$, we see that $`a_1,f_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(P_2)V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$, and so do $`b_1,f_2`$, and therefore statement 3 of the theorem holds. This proves 9.3.

9.3 suggests that we should attempt to combine paths into strips, as in the section on “Generalized line graphs”, and combine antipaths into “antistrips”. Let us make that precise.

Let $`A,B,C`$ be disjoint subsets of $`V(G)`$. We call $`S=(A,C,B)`$ a strip  if $`A,B`$ are nonempty, and every vertex of $`ABC`$ belongs to a path between $`A`$ and $`B`$ with only its first vertex in $`A`$, only its last vertex in $`B`$, and interior in $`C`$. Such a path is called a rung of the strip $`S`$, or an $`S`$-rung. When $`S=(A,C,B)`$ is a strip, $`V(S)`$ means $`ABC`$. The reverse of a strip $`(A,C,B)`$ is the strip $`(B,C,A)`$. An antistrip is a triple that is a strip in $`\overline{G}`$, and the corresponding antipaths are called antirungs. If $`P`$ is a rung with ends $`aA`$ and $`bB`$, we speak of the “rung $`a\text{-}P\text{-}b`$” for brevity; the reader can deduce which end is in which set from the names of the ends, because we shall always use $`a,a^{},a_1`$ etc. for ends in a set called something like $`A`$, and so on.

Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a strip and $`T=(X,Z,Y)`$ an antistrip, with $`V(S)V(T)=\mathrm{}`$. We say $`S,T`$ are parallel if:

* $`A`$ is complete to $`X`$,
* $`B`$ is complete to $`Y`$,
* $`A`$ is anticomplete to $`Y`$,
* $`B`$ is anticomplete to $`X`$,
* $`C`$ is anticomplete to $`XY`$, and
* $`Z`$ is complete to $`AB`$.

We say $`S,T`$ are co-parallel if $`S,T^{}`$ are parallel, where $`T^{}`$ is the reverse of $`T`$.

Now let $`S_1,S_2`$ be strips and $`T`$ an antistrip, where $`S_1,S_2,T`$ are pairwise disjoint. We say that $`S_1,S_2`$ agree on $`T`$ if either $`S_1,T`$ are parallel and $`S_2,T`$ are parallel, or both pairs are co-parallel; and they disagree if one pair is parallel and the other pair is co-parallel. If $`S`$ is a strip and $`T_1,T_2`$ are antistrips, pairwise disjoint, we define whether $`T_1,T_2`$ agree or disagree on $`S`$ similarly.

Now let $`S_1,S_2`$ be strips, and let $`T_1,T_2`$ be antistrips, all pairwise disjoint. We call the quadruple $`(S_1,S_2,T_1,T_2)`$ a twist if $`S_1,S_2`$ agree on one of $`T_1,T_2`$ and disagree on the other. (Equivalently, if $`T_1,T_2`$ agree on one of $`S_1,S_2`$, and disagree on the other.) Note that if $`(S_1,S_2,T_1,T_2)`$ is a twist, then so is $`(S_1^{},S_2,T_1,T_2)`$, where $`S_1^{}`$ is the reverse of $`S_1`$.

A striation in a graph $`G`$ is a family of strips $`S_i=(A_i,C_i,B_i)(1im)`$ together with a family of antistrips $`T_j=(X_j,Z_j,Y_j)(1jn)`$, satisfying the following conditions:

* all the strips and antistrips are pairwise disjoint, and all their rungs and antirungs have odd length
* $`m,n2`$
* for $`1i<i^{}m`$, $`S_i`$ is anticomplete to $`S_i^{}`$, and for $`1j<j^{}n`$, $`T_j`$ is complete to $`T_j^{}`$
* for $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, $`S_i`$ and $`T_j`$ are either parallel or co-parallel
* for $`1i<i^{}m`$ there exist distinct $`j,j^{}`$ with $`1j,j^{}n`$ such that $`(S_i,S_i^{},T_j,T_j^{})`$ is a twist
* for $`1j<j^{}n`$ there exist distinct $`i,i^{}`$ with $`1i,i^{}m`$ such that $`(S_i,S_i^{},T_j,T_j^{})`$ is a twist.

(Note that if we replace some $`(A_i,C_i,B_i)`$ by its reverse, we obtain another striation.) We denote the striation by $`L`$, and the union of the vertex sets of all its strips and antistrips by $`V(L)`$. By analogy with what we did for knots, let us say that a subset $`XV(L)`$ is local with respect to $`L`$ if

* at most one of $`XV(S_1),\mathrm{},XV(S_m)`$ is nonempty,
* for $`1jn`$, every $`T_j`$-antirung has a vertex not in $`X`$, and
* $`X(V(S_1)\mathrm{}V(S_m))`$ is complete to $`X(V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n))`$.

We say $`X`$ resolves $`L`$ if $`V(L)X`$ is local with respect to the striation in $`\overline{G}`$ obtained from $`L`$ by exchanging the strips and antistrips; that is, if

* there is at most one of $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$ that is not a subset of $`X`$,
* for $`1im`$, every $`S_i`$-rung meets $`X`$, and
* $`X`$ contains at least one end of every edge between $`V(S_1)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$ and $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$.

A striation $`L`$ in $`G`$ is maximal if there is no striation $`L^{}`$ in $`G`$ with $`V(L)V(L^{})`$.

###### 9.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no appearance in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$ of any $`K_4`$-enlargement, and there is no overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$. Let $`L`$ be a maximal striation in $`G`$. Let $`fV(G)V(L)`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of neighbours of $`f`$ in $`V(L)`$. Then either $`X`$ is local with respect to $`L`$, or $`X`$ resolves $`L`$.

Proof. Let $`L`$ have strips $`S_i=(A_i,C_i,B_i)(1im)`$ and antistrips $`T_j=(X_j,Z_j,Y_j)(1jn)`$.
(1) Let $`1im`$, and $`1jn`$; let $`a_i\text{-}P_i\text{-}b_i`$ be an $`S_i`$-rung, and $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$ a $`T_j`$-antirung. Then either $`XV(P_i)\mathrm{}`$, or $`V(Q_j)X`$.
For suppose that $`X`$ includes $`V(Q_1)`$ and is disjoint from $`V(P_1)`$ say. By reversing $`S_2`$ we may assume that $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ agree on $`T_1`$; and we may assume they disagree on $`T_2`$. Let $`a_2\text{-}P_2\text{-}b_2`$ be any $`S_2`$-rung, and $`x_2\text{-}Q_2\text{-}y_2`$ any $`T_2`$-antirung. Then $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a knot, so by 9.1, we may assume (taking complements if necessary) that $`Q_1`$ has length 1. But then $`f\text{-}x_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}y_1\text{-}f`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves (1).

From (1), taking complements if necessary, we may assume that for all $`1jn`$, and for all $`T_j`$-antirungs $`Q_j`$, $`V(Q_j)X`$.
(2) $`X`$ meets at most one of $`V(S_1),\mathrm{},V(S_m)`$.
For suppose that $`X`$ meets both $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ say. We may assume that $`(S_1,S_2,T_1,T_2)`$ is a twist. For $`i=1,2`$ choose an $`S_i`$-rung $`P_i`$ so that $`XV(P_i)\mathrm{}`$, and for $`j=1,2`$ choose any $`T_j`$-antirung $`Q_j`$. By our assumption above, $`f`$ has nonneighbours in both $`Q_1,Q_2`$. But then $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a knot, and setting $`F=\{f\}`$ violates 9.3, a contradiction. This proves (2).

We may assume that $`X`$ is not local with respect to $`L`$, and so we may assume that there is an $`S_1`$-rung $`a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1`$ and a $`T_1`$-antirung $`x_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}y_1`$ containing nonadjacent members of $`X`$. By reversing each $`T_j`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`S_1`$ is parallel to each $`T_j`$. In particular, $`a_1x_1`$ is an edge, and so is $`b_1y_1`$. Since the interior of $`Q_1`$ is complete to $`V(P_1)`$, we may assume that $`x_1X`$, and $`X(V(P_1)a_1)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`2jn`$, and let $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$ be any $`T_j`$-antirung. For definiteness we assume $`j=2`$. Now $`T_1,T_2`$ agree on $`S_1`$, and so there is some $`S_i`$ on which they disagree, say $`S_2`$. Let $`a_2\text{-}P_2\text{-}b_2`$ be any $`S_2`$-rung. Then $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a knot, with union $`K`$ say, and $`XV(K)`$ is not local with respect to $`K`$ (since $`x_1X`$, and $`X(V(P_1)a_1)\mathrm{}`$). By 9.3, it follows that 9.3.2 holds, and hence $`f,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(Q_1)V(Q_2)`$. In particular, $`V(Q_2)\{y_2\}X`$. Since $`V(Q_2)X`$, it follows that $`y_2X`$; since this holds for all $`Q_2`$, we deduce that $`XV(T_2)=X_2Z_2`$; and since the same holds for all antistrips of $`L`$ except $`T_1`$, we deduce that $`XV(T_j)=X_jZ_j`$ for $`2jn`$. Since our only assumption about $`T_1`$ was that $`XX_1\mathrm{}`$, and since we have shown that the same is true for all $`T_j`$, we can replace $`T_1`$ by $`T_2`$ say, and deduce similarly that $`XV(T_1)=X_1Z_1`$. But then we can add $`f`$ to $`A_1`$, contrary to the maximality of the striation. This proves 9.4.

###### 9.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no appearance in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$ of any $`K_4`$-enlargement, and there is no overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$. Let $`L`$ be a maximal striation in $`G`$. Let $`FV(G)V(L)`$ be connected, such that for each $`fF`$, the set of its neighbours in $`V(L)`$ is local with respect to $`L`$. Then the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(L)`$ is local with respect to $`L`$.

Proof. Let $`L`$ have strips $`S_i=(A_i,C_i,B_i)(1im)`$ and antistrips $`T_j=(X_j,Z_j,Y_j)(1jn)`$. Suppose not, and choose a counterexample $`F`$ with $`F`$ minimal. Let $`X`$ be its set of attachments in $`V(L)`$.
(1) $`XV(T_1)\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}V(T_n)`$.
For suppose it is. Since $`X`$ is not local, we may assume that $`X`$ includes $`V(Q_1)`$ for some $`T_1`$-antirung $`x_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}y_1`$. Let $`2jn`$, and let $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$ be a $`T_j`$-antirung. Then we can choose some $`S_i,S_i^{}`$ to make a twist, and if we choose an $`S_i`$-rung and $`S_i^{}`$-rung and apply 9.3 to the resultant knot, we deduce (since no vertices of $`S_i`$ and $`S_i^{}`$ are in $`X`$) that 9.3.3 holds. This has several consequences. First, it implies that there is an odd path in $`F`$ with vertices $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k`$ say, which is either parallel or co-parallel to $`Q_1`$, and either parallel or co-parallel to $`Q_j`$; and there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ and $`Q_1Q_j`$. Hence the set of attachments of $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ is not local with respect to $`L`$, and so $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ from the minimality of $`F`$. Second, every vertex of $`Q_j`$ is in $`X`$, and since this holds for all $`Q_j`$ it follows that $`V(T_j)X`$. By exchanging $`T_1`$ and $`T_j`$ it follows that $`V(T_1)X`$. Moreover, since this holds for all $`j`$ we deduce that $`X=V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$. This restores the symmetry between $`T_1`$ and $`T_2,\mathrm{},T_n`$. Third, this shows that there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ and $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$. Fourth, for $`1jn`$ every vertex in $`Z_j`$ is adjacent to both $`f_1,f_k`$. Since $`k`$ is even, this proves that either $`k=2`$ or $`Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n=\mathrm{}`$. Fifth, every vertex in $`X_1Y_1\mathrm{}X_nY_n`$ is adjacent to exactly one of $`f_1,f_n`$; let $`U`$ be the set of those adjacent to $`f_1`$, and $`V`$ those adjacent to $`f_n`$. For the moment fix $`j`$ with $`1jn`$. Every $`T_j`$-antirung has one end in $`U`$ and the other in $`V`$; let $`M_j`$ be the union of the vertex sets of all $`T_j`$-antirungs $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$ such that $`x_jU`$, and $`N_j`$ the union of all those with $`x_jV`$. Since there is no $`T_j`$-antirung with both ends in $`M_j`$ or both ends in $`N_j`$, it follows that $`M_jN_j=\mathrm{}`$, and there are no nonedges betwen $`M_j`$ and $`N_j`$ except possibly between $`M_jX_j`$ and $`N_jX_j`$, or between $`M_jY_j`$ and $`N_jY_j`$. Suppose there is such a nonedge; and choose $`T_j`$-antirungs $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$,$`x_j^{}\text{-}Q_j^{}\text{-}y_j^{}`$ where $`x_jU`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_j^{}V`$, say. Now $`X_j,x_j^{}`$ have a common neighbour $`d_1A_1B_1`$, and then $`d_1\text{-}x_j\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}x_j^{}\text{-}d_1`$ is an odd hole. This proves that $`M_j`$ is complete to $`N_j`$. Now if $`M_j`$ is nonempty, then $`(M_jX_j,M_jZ_j,M_jY_j)`$ is an antistrip, and similarly if $`N_j`$ is nonempty it also induces an antistrip. We call these the offspring of $`T_j`$. (If one of $`M_j,N_j`$ is empty, then the other equals $`V(T_j)`$, and so the only offspring of $`T_j`$ is $`T_j`$ itself; and otherwise it has two.) Also, there is a new strip $`S_0=(\{f_1\},\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\},\{f_k\})`$. Note that

* for all $`j`$ with $`1jn`$, $`S_0`$ is parallel or antiparallel with the offspring of $`T_j`$
* for all $`i`$ with $`1im`$, there exists $`j`$ with $`1jn`$ such that $`S_0,S_i`$ disagree on one of the offspring of $`T_j`$, and there exists $`j`$ so that $`S_0,S_i`$ agree on one of the offspring of $`T_j`$. For if the first were false, say, then each of the $`T_j`$’s has only one offspring, and we could add $`f_1`$ to $`A_i`$, $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ to $`C_i`$, and $`f_k`$ to $`B_i`$, contradicting the maximality of the striation; while if the second were false we could do the same with $`f_1,f_k`$ exchanged.
* if $`T_1^{},T_2^{}`$ are each offspring of one of $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$, then there exists $`i`$ with $`0im`$ such that $`T_1^{},T_2^{}`$ agree on $`S_i`$; and there exists $`i`$ such that they disagree. For this is clear if they are offspring of different parents, since their parents were in a twist together; while if they are both offspring of the same $`T_j`$, then they disagree on $`S_0`$ and agree on all of $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_m`$.

It follows from these observations that the set of strips $`S_0,\mathrm{},S_m`$, together with the set of offspring of $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$, forms a new striation, contrary to the maximality of $`L`$. This proves (1).
(2) $`X`$ meets exactly one of $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_m`$.
For by (1) it meets at least one of these sets; suppose it meets two, say $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. We may assume that $`(S_1,S_2,T_1,T_2)`$ is a twist. For $`i=1,2`$ choose an $`S_i`$-rung $`a_i\text{-}P_i\text{-}b_i`$ so that $`X`$ meets $`P_i`$, and for $`j=1,2`$ let $`x_j\text{-}Q_j\text{-}y_j`$ be a $`Q_j`$-antirung. Then $`(P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2)`$ is a knot $`K`$ say, and $`XV(K)`$ is not local with respect to $`K`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`F`$ is minimal such that $`XV(K)`$ is not local with respect to $`K`$. It follows from 9.3 that one of 9.3.1, 9.3.4 holds; and in either case there is a vertex $`fF`$ with neighbours in $`P_1`$ and in $`P_2`$. Hence the set of neighbours of $`f`$ in $`V(L)`$ is not local with respect to $`L`$. But this contradicts a hypothesis of the theorem, and hence proves (2).
(3) $`V(Q_j)X`$, for $`1jn`$, and for every $`T_j`$-antirung $`Q_j`$.
For suppose that $`V(Q_1)X`$ for some $`T_1`$-antirung $`x_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}y_1`$. By (2) we may assume that $`X`$ meets $`S_1`$ and none of $`S_2,\mathrm{},S_m`$. Let $`2jn`$, and choose $`i`$ with $`2im`$ so that $`(S_1,S_i,T_1,T_j)`$ is a twist. Let $`Q_j`$ be an $`x_j\text{-}T_j\text{-}y_j`$-antirung, let $`a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1`$ be an $`S_1`$-rung so that $`X`$ meets $`P_1`$, and let $`a_i\text{-}P_i\text{-}b_i`$ be an $`S_i`$-rung. Hence $`(P_1,P_i,Q_1,Q_j)`$ is a knot. Let us apply 9.3. By (2) and the minimality of $`F`$ it follows that 9.3.3 holds. This has several consequences. First, from the minimality of $`F`$, $`G|F`$ is an odd path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ such that $`f_1,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(Q_1Q_j)`$, and so do $`f_k,b_1`$, and there are no edges between $`F`$ and $`V(P_1)`$ except possibly $`f_1a_1`$ and $`f_kb_1`$. Since $`X`$ meets $`P_1`$, it follows that at least one of these two edges is present; and therefore they both are, since $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ is an odd path and so is $`P_1`$ (for otherwise the union of these two paths, with one of $`x_1,y_1`$, would induce an odd hole). So $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and to no other vertex of $`P_1`$, and $`f_n`$ to $`b_1`$ and to no other vertex of $`P_1`$. Second, $`V(Q_j)X`$. Since this holds for all $`Q_j`$ it follows that $`V(T_j)X`$; and by exchanging $`T_1`$ and $`T_j`$ we deduce that $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)X`$. Moreover $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ is anticomplete to $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$. Third, let $`x_j^{}\text{-}Q_j^{}\text{-}y_j^{}`$ be some other $`T_j`$-antirung. By the same argument applied to the knot $`(P_1,P_i,Q_1,Q_j^{})`$, we deduce that again 9.3.3 holds, and so one of $`f_1,f_k`$ is adjacent to $`x_j^{}`$ and the other to $`y_j^{}`$. Furthermore, the one adjacent to $`x_j^{}`$ is also adjacent to $`a_1`$; and so in fact $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`x_j^{}`$. Since this holds for all choices of $`Q_j`$ and of $`j`$, it follows that $`f_1,a_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$, and so do $`f_k,b_1`$. Hence we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A_1`$, $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ to $`C_1`$ and $`f_k`$ to $`B_1`$, contrary to the maximality of the striation. This proves (3).

Since $`X`$ is not local with respect to $`L`$, we may assume from (2) and (3) that there exist a vertex of $`XV(S_1)`$ and a vertex of $`XV(T_1)`$ that are nonadjacent. By reversing $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$ we may assume that $`S_1`$ is parallel to each $`T_j`$. Since every vertex of $`Z_1`$ is complete to $`V(S_1)`$, we may assume that there is an $`S_1`$-rung $`a_1\text{-}P_1\text{-}b_1`$ and a $`T_1`$-antirung $`x_1\text{-}Q_1\text{-}y_1`$ so that $`x_1X`$ and $`XV(P_1a_1)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`2jn`$, and choose $`i`$ with $`2im`$ so that $`(S_1,S_i,T_1,T_j)`$ is a twist. Let $`P_i`$ be an $`S_i`$-rung, and let $`Q_j`$ be a $`T_j`$-antirung. So $`(P_1,P_i,Q_1,Q_j)`$ is a knot $`K`$ say, and $`XV(K)`$ is not local with respect to $`K`$. By 9.3 and (3) and the minimality of $`F`$, 9.3.2 holds; let $`R`$ be the path in $`F`$ satisfying 9.3.2. Then the set of attachments of $`R`$ in $`V(L)`$ is not local with respect to $`L`$, and so $`V(R)=F`$ from the minimality of $`F`$. Hence $`F`$ is a path with vertices $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ say. Since $`x_1X`$, it follows that one of $`f_1,f_k`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$, and we may assume that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$. By 9.3.2, $`f_1`$ is also adjacent to $`x_j`$ and to all internal vertices of $`Q_1,Q_j`$, and to neither of $`y_1,y_j`$, and none of $`f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}`$ have neighbours in $`V(Q_1Q_j)`$, and $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`P_1a_1`$, and $`f_k`$ has no neighbours in $`V(Q_1Q_j)`$. For any other choice of $`Q_j`$ the same happens, and $`f_1,f_k`$ cannot become exchanged since $`f_1`$ has neighbours in $`Q_1`$ and $`f_k`$ has none. We deduce that $`f_1`$ is complete to $`X_jZ_j`$ and anticomplete to $`Y_j`$; and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ is anticomplete to $`V(T_j)`$. In particular there is a vertex of $`XV(S_1)`$ and a vertex of $`XV(T_j)`$ that are nonadjacent, and so by exchanging $`T_1`$ and $`T_j`$ in the above argument, we deduce that $`f_1`$ is complete to $`X_1Z_1`$ and anticomplete to $`Y_1`$; and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ is anticomplete to $`V(T_1)`$. Since this holds for all $`j`$, it follows that $`a_1,f_1`$ have the same neighbours in $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$, and there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$. But then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A_1`$ and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ to $`C_1`$, contrary to the maximality of the striation. This proves 9.5.

Now we can prove 1.3.3, which we restate.

###### 9.6

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that every appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ and in $`\overline{G}`$ is degenerate, and there is no induced subgraph of $`G`$ isomorphic to $`L(K_{3,3})`$. Then either $`G`$ is a bicograph, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$.

Proof. If there is an appearance in $`G`$ of some $`K_4`$-enlargement, say $`L(H^{})`$, then by 5.3, either $`H^{}=K_{3,3}`$, which is impossible by hypothesis, or there is a subgraph $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`H^{}`$ which is a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$, such that $`L(H^{\prime \prime })`$ is nondegenerate, and again this is impossible by hypothesis. So there is no appearance in $`G`$ of a $`K_4`$-enlargement, and similarly there is none in $`\overline{G}`$. Moreover, by 7.5, we may assume that there is no overshadowed appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ or in $`\overline{G}`$. We may assume that there is an appearance of $`K_4`$ in one of $`G,\overline{G}`$, and by taking complements if necessary we may assume that $`L(H)`$ is an appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. By hypothesis it is degenerate, and hence there is a striation in $`G`$; choose a maximal striation $`L`$. Let $`L`$ have strips $`S_i=(A_i,C_i,B_i)(1im)`$ and antistrips $`T_j=(X_j,Z_j,Y_j)(1jn)`$. By 9.4 we can partition $`V(G)V(L)`$ into two sets $`M,N`$, where for every vertex in $`M`$ its set of neighbours in $`V(L)`$ is local with respect to $`L`$, and for every vertex in $`N`$, its set of neighbours in $`V(L)`$ resolves $`L`$.
(1) If there exists $`fN`$ with a nonneighbour in $`V(S_1)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$ then the theorem holds.
For let $`f`$ have a nonneighbour in $`S_1`$ say. Let $`N_1`$ be the anticomponent of $`N`$ containing $`f`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of all $`N_1`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)`$. From 9.5 applied in the complement, it follows that $`X`$ resolves $`L`$. Since $`f`$ has a nonneighbour in $`V(S_1)`$, there is a vertex $`u`$ of $`S_1`$ not in $`X`$. Let $`U`$ be the component of $`V(G)(XN)`$ containing $`u`$. We claim that $`U`$ is disjoint from $`V(L)V(S_1)`$, and no vertex in $`V(S_2)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$ has a neighbour in $`U`$. For suppose not; then there is a path $`P`$ say in $`G`$, from $`V(S_1)`$ to $`V(L)V(S_1)`$, with $`(XN)V(P)V(S_2)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$; choose such a path minimal. It follows that no internal vertex of $`P`$ is in $`V(L)`$ or in $`XN`$; and since $`X`$ meets every edge between $`V(S_1)`$ and $`V(L)V(S_1)`$, and there are no edges between $`V(S_1)`$ and $`V(S_2)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$, it follows that $`P^{}`$ is nonempty. Now no vertex of $`P^{}`$ is in $`N`$, since $`NN_1X`$; and so there is a component $`M_1`$ of $`M`$ including $`P^{}`$. From 9.5, the set of attachments of $`M_1`$ in $`V(L)`$ is local with respect to $`L`$. Since it has an attachment in $`V(S_1)`$ it therefore has none in $`V(S_2)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$. But the ends of $`P`$ are attachments of $`M_1`$, they are nonadjacent, and one is in $`V(S_1)`$ and the other is not, a contradiction. This proves that $`U`$ is disjoint from $`V(L)V(S_1)`$. Let $`X^{}`$ be the set of vertices in $`X`$ with neighbours in $`U`$, and let $`V=V(G)(UN_1X^{})`$. Then $`V`$ is nonempty because $`V(S_2)V`$; and so $`UV,N_1X^{}`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Since there is a vertex of $`S_2`$ in $`X`$ (because $`X`$ resolves $`L`$), and this vertex is in $`V`$, we deduce that the skew partition is loose, and hence by 4.2 $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. This proves (1).

From (1) we may assume that $`N`$ is complete to $`V(S_1)\mathrm{}V(S_m)`$, and by taking complements, that $`M`$ is anticomplete to $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$.
(2) If $`M,N`$ are both nonempty then the theorem holds.
For let $`M_1`$ be a component of $`M`$, and $`N_1`$ an anticomponent of $`N`$. By taking complements we may assume that there is a nonedge between $`M_1`$ and $`N_1`$. Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`N_1`$-complete vertices in $`G`$. Since the set of attachments of $`M_1`$ in $`V(L)`$ is local by 9.5, and since it has no attachments in $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$, we may assume that all its attachments are in $`V(S_1)`$. Let $`V=V(G)(M_1N_1V(S_1))`$. Since $`V(S_1)X`$, it follows that $`(M_1V,N_1V(S_1))`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, and since there are $`N_1`$-complete vertices with no neighbours in $`M_1`$ (for instance, any vertex of $`V(S_2)`$), the skew partition is loose, and by 4.2 $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. This proves (2).
(3) If $`M,N`$ are both empty then the theorem holds.
For then by 9.1, we may assume that for $`1jn`$ all $`Q_j`$-antirungs have length 1. If $`|V(S_1)|>2`$, then $`(V(S_1),V(L)V(S_1))`$ is a 2-join of $`G`$; for every vertex in $`V(T_1)\mathrm{}V(T_n)`$ is either complete to $`A_1`$ and anticomplete to $`B_1C_1`$, or complete to $`B_1`$ and anticomplete to $`A_1C_1`$ (since all the antirungs have length 1). So we may assume that each $`S_i`$ has only two vertices. In particular, every $`S_i`$-rung has length 1, so by taking complements the same argument shows that we may assume every $`V(T_j)`$ has only two vertices. But then $`G`$ is a bicograph and the theorem holds. This proves (3).

From (2) and (3), and taking complements if necessary, we may assume that $`N`$ is empty and $`M`$ is nonempty. For $`1im`$ let $`M_i`$ be the union of the components of $`M`$ that have an attachment in $`V(S_i)`$, and let $`M_0`$ be the union of the components of $`M`$ that have no attachments in $`V(L)`$. Then $`M_0,M_1,\mathrm{},M_n`$ are pairwise disjoint and have union $`M`$. If $`M_0`$ is nonempty then $`G`$ is not connected, and therefore either it admits a balanced skew partition, or $`|V(G)|4`$ and $`G`$ is bipartite, so we may assume that $`M_0`$ is empty. Since $`M`$ is nonempty we may assume that $`M_1`$ is nonempty. We recall that $`T_1=(X_1,Z_1,Y_1)`$; suppose that $`zZ_1`$. Then $`z`$ is complete to $`V(S_1)`$, and hence if we define $`V=V(G)M_1V(S_1)\{z\}`$, then $`(M_1V,V(S_1)\{z\})`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, and by 4.1 $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. So we may assume that $`Z_1`$ is empty, and similarly every $`Z_j`$ is empty. Then $`(M_1V(S_1),V(G)(M_1V(S_1))`$ is a 2-join of $`G`$. This proves 9.6.

It is convenient to combine three earlier results as follows.

###### 9.7

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is an appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Then either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ is a line graph, or $`G`$ is a bicograph, or one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. This is immediate from 9.6,5.1 and 5.2.

## 10 The even prism

We proved that if $`G`$ is Berge and contains a nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$, then either $`G`$ is a line graph, or it admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition. Now we want to show that the same conclusion holds for Berge graphs that contain an “even” prism. (Incidentally, the results of this section are independent of those in the previous one; these two sections could be in either order.) We begin with some results about prisms in general.

For $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`a_i\text{-}R_i\text{-}b_i`$ be a path in $`G`$, so that these three paths form a prism $`K`$ with triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$. A subset $`XV(G)`$ saturates the prism if at least two vertices of each triangle belong to $`X`$; and a vertex is major with respect to the prism if its neighbour set saturates it. A subset $`XV(K)`$ is local with respect to the prism if either $`XV(R_i)`$ for some $`i`$, or $`X`$ is a subset of one of the triangles. By 7.2, the three paths $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ all have lengths of the same parity. A prism is even if the three paths $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ have even length, and odd otherwise.

For our purposes, even prisms are easier than odd ones. All the prisms contained in a degenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ are odd, so if we succeed in growing an even prism to become an appearance of $`K_4`$, this appearance is guaranteed to be nondegenerate.

###### 10.1

Let $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ form a prism $`K`$ in a Berge graph $`G`$, with triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$, where each $`R_i`$ has ends $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. Let $`FV(G)V(K)`$ be connected, such that its set of attachments in $`K`$ is not local. Assume no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$. Then there is a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ in $`F`$ with $`n1`$, such that (up to symmetry) either:

1. $`f_1`$ has two adjacent neighbours in $`R_1`$, and $`f_n`$ has two adjacent neighbours in $`R_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)`$, and (therefore) $`G`$ has an induced subgraph which is the line graph of a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$, or
2. $`n2`$, $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$, and $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)`$, or
3. $`n2`$, $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1,a_2`$, and $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`b_1,b_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)`$, or
4. $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1,a_2`$, and $`f_n`$ has at least one neighbour in $`R_3a_3`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)a_3.`$

Proof. We may assume that $`F`$ is minimal such that it is connected and its set of attachments in $`K`$ is not local. Let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`K`$. For $`1i3`$, if $`XV(R_i)\mathrm{}`$, let $`c_i`$ and $`d_i`$ be the vertices of $`R_i`$ in $`X`$ closest (in $`R_i`$) to $`a_i`$ and to $`b_i`$ respectively, and let $`C_i,D_i`$ be the subpaths of $`R_i`$ between $`a_i`$ and $`c_i`$, and between $`d_i`$ and $`b_i`$ respectively. Let $`A=\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`B=\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$.

We claim that some two-element subset of $`X`$ is not local. For since $`XB`$ we may assume that $`c_1`$ exists and $`c_1b_1`$. Since $`XV(R_1)`$, we may assume $`d_2`$ exists. If $`d_2a_2`$ then $`\{c_1,d_2\}`$ is the desired subset; so we may assume $`d_2=a_2`$, and similarly $`d_3=a_3`$ if $`d_3`$ exists. Since $`XA`$, it follws that $`d_1a_1`$, and then $`\{a_2,d_1\}`$ is the desired subset. So some two-element subset $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ of $`X`$ is not local. Consequently $`x_1,x_2`$ are not adjacent. From the minimality of $`F`$, there is a path with vertices $`x_1,f_1,\mathrm{},f_n,x_2`$ so that $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$.
(1) If $`n=1`$ then the theorem holds.
For assume $`n=1`$; then $`F=\{f_1\}`$. Since $`X`$ is not local it meets at least two of the paths; suppose it only meets $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. Suppose that $`c_1=d_1`$. Then we may assume that $`c_1A`$ and $`c_2b_2`$, by exchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$ if necessary; but then $`c_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`A`$, via the paths $`c_1\text{-}C_1\text{-}a_1`$, $`c_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}C_2\text{-}a_2`$, and $`c_1\text{-}D_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3`$, contrary to 2.4, since $`f`$ has at most one neighbour in $`A`$. So $`c_1`$ is different from $`d_1`$, and similarly $`c_2`$ is different from $`d_2`$ (and in particular, $`c_2b_2`$). Suppose that $`c_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`d_1`$. Then since $`f_1`$ is not major, we may assume it has at most one neighbour in $`A`$, by exchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$ if necessary; but it can be linked onto $`A`$, via $`f_1\text{-}c_1\text{-}C_1\text{-}a_1`$, $`f_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}C_2\text{-}a_2`$ and $`f_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}D_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3`$, contrary to 2.4. So $`c_1,d_1`$ are adjacent, and similarly so are $`c_2,d_2`$, but then statement 1 of the theorem holds. So we may assume that $`X`$ meets all three of $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$. Since $`f_1`$ is not major, we may assume that it has at most one neighbour in $`A`$, by exchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$ if necessary, and therefore cannot be linked onto $`A`$. Since it has neighbours in all three of $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$, it follows that for at least two of these paths, the only neighbour of $`f_1`$ in this path is in $`B`$. We may assume therefore that $`c_1=b_1`$ and $`c_2=b_2`$. Since $`X`$ is not local, $`c_3b_3`$; but then statement 4 of the theorem holds. This proves (1).

We may therefore assume that $`n2`$. Let $`X_1`$ be the set of attachments of $`Ff_1`$, and $`X_2`$ the set of attachments of $`Ff_n`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are local. Moreover, $`X=X_1X_2`$, and for $`2in1`$, every neighbour of $`f_i`$ in $`K`$ belongs to $`X_1X_2`$.
(2) If $`X_1A`$ and $`X_2V(R_1)`$ then the theorem holds.
For then $`f_1`$ has at least one neighbour in $`R_1a_1`$, and $`f_n`$ is adjacent to at least one of $`a_2,a_3`$, and there are no other edges between $`F`$ and $`V(K)a_1`$. If $`f_n`$ is adjacent to both $`a_2,a_3`$ then statement 4 of the theorem holds, so we assume it is not adjacent to $`a_3`$. But then $`a_2`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`B`$, via $`a_2\text{-}f_n\text{-}f_{n1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}D_1\text{-}b_1`$, $`a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$, $`a_2\text{-}a_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}b_3`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves (2).

From (2), since both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are local, we may assume that either $`X_1A`$ and $`X_2B`$, or $`X_1V(R_2)`$ and $`X_2V(R_1)`$. In either case $`X_1X_2=\mathrm{}`$, so none of $`f_2,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$ has any neighbours in $`V(K)`$. Therefore $`X_1`$ is the set of neighbours of $`f_n`$ in $`V(K)`$, and $`X_2`$ is the set of neighbours of $`f_1`$ in $`V(K)`$.
(3) If $`X_1A`$ and $`X_2B`$ then the theorem holds.
For then we may assume that $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and $`f_1`$ to $`b_2`$. Suppose first that $`n`$ has the same parity as the length of $`R_1`$. Since $`a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}a_2`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`f_n`$ is not adjacent to $`a_2`$, and similarly $`f_1`$ is not adjacent to $`b_1`$. Since $`a_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}b_3\text{-}b_2\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_3`$ is not an odd hole, either $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_3`$ or $`f_1`$ to $`b_3`$, and not both, as we saw before. But then statement 4 of the theorem holds. Now suppose that $`n`$ has different parity from the length of $`R_1`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole, $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$, and similarly $`f_1`$ to $`b_1`$. If there are no more edges between $`F`$ and $`V(K)`$ then statement 3 of the theorem holds, so we may assume that $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_3`$. By the same argument as before it follows that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`b_3`$, and then statement 2 of the theorem holds. This proves (3).

From (2) and (3) we may assume that $`X_1V(R_2)`$ and $`X_2V(R_1)`$. So $`f_1`$ is adjacent to the vertices of $`R_1`$ that are in $`X`$, and $`f_n`$ to those of $`R_2`$ in $`X`$. If $`c_1=d_1`$, then from the symmetry we may assume that $`c_1a_1`$, and $`c_2b_2`$; but then $`c_1`$ can be linked onto $`A`$, via $`c_1\text{-}C_1\text{-}a_1`$, $`c_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}c_2\text{-}C_2\text{-}a_2`$, $`c_1\text{-}D_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3`$, contrary to 2.4. So $`c_1d_1`$ and similarly $`c_2d_2`$; and in particular $`c_2b_2`$. If $`c_1,d_1`$ are nonadjacent, then $`f_1`$ can be linked onto $`A`$ via $`f_1\text{-}c_1\text{-}C_1\text{-}a_1`$, $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}c_2\text{-}C_2\text{-}a_2`$, $`f_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}D_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3`$; but $`f_1`$ has at most one neighbour in $`A`$ (because $`n2`$), contrary to 2.4. So $`c_1,d_1`$ are adjacent, and similarly so are $`c_2,d_2`$; but then statement 1 of the theorem holds. This proves 10.1.

###### 10.2

Let $`R_1,R_2,R_3,K,F`$ be as in 10.1, and suppose that 10.1.1 holds. Then either $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ both have length 1, or there is a nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$.

Proof. For let $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ be a path in $`F`$ so that $`f_1`$ has two adjacent neighbours in $`R_1`$, and $`f_n`$ has two adjacent neighbours in $`P_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)`$. Then $`G|(V(K)\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ is a line graph of a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$. We may assume it is degenerate. Hence the prism is odd, for all prisms contained in a degenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ are odd. So $`R_3`$ is odd, and therefore so is the path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$, and the other four “rungs” of this line graph have length 0. In particular, $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ both have length 1. This proves 10.2.

There is also a tighter version of 10.1, the following.

###### 10.3

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Let $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ form a prism $`K`$ in $`G`$, with triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$, where each $`R_i`$ has ends $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. Let $`FV(G)V(K)`$ be connected, such that no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$. Let $`x_1`$ be an attachment of $`F`$ in the interior of $`R_1`$, and assume that there is another attachment $`x_2`$ of $`F`$ not in $`R_1`$. Then there is a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ in $`F`$ such that (up to the symmetry between $`A`$ and $`B`$) $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2,a_3`$, and $`f_n`$ has at least one neighbour in $`R_1a_1`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)a_1.`$

Proof. We may assume $`F`$ is minimal such that it is connected, $`x_1`$ is one of its attachments, and it has some attachment $`x_2`$ in $`R_2R_3`$. Hence there is a path $`x_2\text{-}v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_m\text{-}x_1`$ where $`F=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$. By 10.1, there is a subpath $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ of $`v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_m`$ such that one of 10.1.1-4 holds. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`v_1`$ is the only vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$, and in particular, at most one vertex of $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ has a neighbour in $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$. We deduce that $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ does not satisfy 10.1.2 or 10.1.3. Suppose it satisfies 10.1.1. By 10.2 the path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ joins two of $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ that are both of length 1, and therefore $`n`$ is even. Since $`R_1`$ has length $`2`$ (because $`x_1`$ is in its interior) it follows that $`f_1,f_n`$ are distinct vertices of $`F`$ both with neighbours in $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$, a contradiction. So $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ satisfies 10.1.4, and therefore we may assume that for some $`i`$ with $`1i3`$, $`f_1`$ is adjacent to the two vertices in $`A\{a_i\}`$, and $`f_n`$ has at least one neighbour in $`R_ia_i`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)a_i.`$ Suppose first that $`i>1`$, $`i=2`$ say. Then both $`f_1,f_n`$ have neighbours in $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$, and so from the minimality of $`F`$ it follows that $`n=1`$ and $`f_1=v_1`$. But then $`f_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`B`$, via the path between $`f_1`$ and $`b_1`$ with interior in $`\{v_2,\mathrm{},v_m\}(V(R_1)a_1)`$, the path between $`f_1`$ and $`b_2`$ with interior in $`V(R_2)a_2`$, and the path $`f_1\text{-}a_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}b_3`$, contrary to 2.4. Hence $`i=1`$, and the theorem is satisfied. This proves 10.3.

Another useful corollary of 10.1 is the following.

###### 10.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Let $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ form a prism $`K`$ in a Berge graph $`G`$, with triangles $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ and $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$, where each $`R_i`$ has ends $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. Let $`FV(G)V(K)`$ be connected, such that if the prism is even then no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$. Assume that the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`K`$ is not local, but none are in $`V(R_3)`$. Then $`|F|2`$, and the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`K`$ is precisely $`\{a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2\}`$.

Proof. If there is a major vertex $`vF`$, then since it has no neighbours in $`R_3`$, it is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and $`b_2`$, and since $`v\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}b_3\text{-}b_2\text{-}v`$ is a hole, it follows that the prism is even, contrary to the hypothesis. So there is no major vertex in $`F`$. By 10.3 no internal vertex of $`R_1`$ or $`R_2`$ is an attachment of $`F`$. By 10.1, there is a path in $`F`$ satisfying one of 10.1.1-4; and since it has no attachments in $`R_3`$, it must satisfy 10.1.1 or 10.1.3, and in either case $`a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2`$ are all attachments of $`F`$. Since no vertex in $`F`$ is major it follows that $`|F|2`$. This proves 10.4.

The next result is a close relative of 7.5.

###### 10.5

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. If there is an even prism $`K`$ in a Berge graph $`G`$, such that some vertex of $`G`$ is major with respect to $`K`$, then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Any prism has six vertices of degree 3, called triangle-vertices; choose a prism $`K`$ and a nonempty co-connected set $`YV(G)V(K)`$, such that every vertex in $`Y`$ is major with respect to the prism, and as few triangle-vertices of $`K`$ are $`Y`$-complete as possible. Let the paths $`a_i\text{-}R_i\text{-}b_i(i=1,2,3)`$ form $`K`$, where $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\},\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$ are its triangles. We may assume that $`Y`$ is maximal with the given property. Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`G`$. By 7.3, $`X`$ saturates $`K`$. Consequently there is one of $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ with both ends in $`X`$, say $`R_1`$. Let $`X_0=XV(K)`$ and $`X_1=\{a_1,b_1\}.`$
(1) If $`FV(G)`$ is connected and some vertex of $`V(R_1^{})`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$, and so does some vertex of $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$, then $`F(X_0X_1Y)`$ is nonempty.
Suppose for a contradiction that some $`F`$ exists not satisfying (1), and choose it minimal. Hence $`G|F`$ is a path, disjoint from $`K`$. Consequently $`FX=\mathrm{}`$. Suppose some vertex in $`vF`$ is major with respect to $`K`$. Then since $`vX`$ it follows that $`v`$ has a nonneighbour in $`Y`$, and so $`Y\{v\}`$ is anticonnected; the maximality of $`Y`$ therefore implies that $`vY`$, and hence $`FY\mathrm{}`$ and the claim holds. So we may assume that no vertex in $`F`$ is major. Let $`x_1`$ be an attachment of $`F`$ in $`R_1^{}`$. By 10.3 we may assume that there is a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ in $`F`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2,a_3`$, and $`f_n`$ has neighbours in $`R_1a_1`$, and $`f_1a_2,f_1a_3`$ are the only edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(R_2)V(R_3)`$ Now there is a path $`R`$ from $`f_1`$ to $`b_1`$ with interior in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_n\}V(R_1a_1)`$, and hence $`R,R_2,R_3`$ form a prism $`K^{}`$ say. By 7.4, every vertex in $`Y`$ is major with respect to $`K^{}`$, and since $`a_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`f_1`$ is not, it follows that the number of $`Y`$-complete triangle-vertices in $`K^{}`$ is smaller than the number in $`K`$, a contradiction. This proves (1).

It follows from (1) that there is a partition of $`V(G)(X_0X_1Y)`$ into two sets $`L`$ and $`M`$ say, where there is no edge between $`L`$ and $`M`$, and $`V(R_1^{})L`$ and $`V(R_2)V(R_3)M`$. So $`(LM,X_0X_1Y)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Since at least two vertices of $`A`$ are in $`X`$ and only one is in $`X_1`$, there is a vertex of $`X`$ in $`M`$, and so the skew partition is loose. By 4.2 the result follows. This proves 10.5.

The main result of this section is 1.3.4, which we restate.

###### 10.6

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. If $`G`$ contains an even prism, then either $`G`$ is an even prism with $`|V(G)|=9`$, or $`G`$ admits a 2-join or a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Since $`G`$ contains an even prism, we can choose in $`G`$ a collection of nine sets

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1& C_1& B_1\\ A_2& C_2& B_2\\ A_3& C_3& B_3\end{array}$$

with the following properties:

* all these sets are nonempty and pairwise disjoint
* for $`1i<j3`$ $`A_i`$ is complete to $`A_j`$ and $`B_i`$ is complete to $`B_j`$, and there are no other edges between $`A_iB_iC_i`$ and $`A_jB_jC_j`$
* for $`1i3`$, every vertex of $`A_iB_iC_i`$ belongs to a path between $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ with interior in $`C_i`$
* some path between $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ with interior in $`C_1`$ is even.

We call this collection of nine sets a hyperprism. Let $`H`$ be the subgraph of $`G`$ induced on the union of the nine sets. Choose the hyperprism with $`V(H)`$ maximal. For $`1i3`$, a path from $`A_i`$ to $`B_i`$ with interior in $`C_i`$ is called an $`i`$-rung. Let us write $`S_i=A_iB_iC_i`$ for $`1i3`$, and $`A=A_1A_2A_3`$, and $`B=B_1B_2B_3`$.
(1) For $`1i3`$, all $`i`$-rungs have even length.
For we are given that some 1-rung $`R_1`$ say has even length. Let $`R_2`$ be an 2-rung; then the union of $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ induces a hole, and so $`R_2`$ is even. Hence every 2- or 3-rung is even, and hence so is every 1-rung. This proves (1).

A subset $`XV(H)`$ is local (with respect to the hyperprism) if $`X`$ is a subset of one of $`S_1,S_2,S_3,A`$ or $`B`$.
(2) We may assume that for every connected subset $`F`$ of $`V(G)V(H)`$, its set of attachments in $`H`$ is local.
For suppose not. Choose $`F`$ minimal, and let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`H`$. Suppose first that there exists $`x_1XC_1`$. Since $`X`$ is not local, we may assume that there exists $`x_2XS_2`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$ choose an $`i`$-rung $`R_i`$ with ends $`a_iA_i`$ and $`b_iB_i`$, so that for $`i=1,2`$, $`x_iV(R_i)`$. Then $`R_1,R_2,R_3`$ form an even prism $`K`$ say. By 10.5 we may assume no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$; so by 10.3, we may assume that there is a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ in $`F`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2,a_3`$, and $`f_n`$ has at least one neighbour in $`R_1a_1`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`V(K)a_1`$. From the minimality of $`F`$ it follows that $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$. Since this holds for all choices of $`R_3`$ it follows that $`f_1`$ is complete to $`A_3`$ and there are no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`B_3C_3`$. Since $`a_3X`$ the same conclusion follows for all choices of $`R_2`$, and so $`f_1`$ is complete to $`A_2`$ and there are no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ and $`B_2C_2`$. But then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A_1`$ and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ to $`C_1`$, contradicting the maximality of the hyperprism. It follows that $`XC_1=\mathrm{}`$, and similarly $`XC_2,XC_3=\mathrm{}`$. We claim there is a 2-element subset of $`X`$ which is also not local. For we may assume $`XA_1\mathrm{}`$; and hence if $`X`$ meets $`B_2`$ or $`B_3`$ our claim holds. If not, then it meets $`B_1`$ (since it is not a subset of $`A`$) and meets $`A_2A_3`$ (since it is not a subset of $`S_1`$), and again the claim holds. So there is a subset $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ of $`X`$ which is not local. We may assume that $`x_1A_1`$ and $`x_2B_2`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, there is a path $`x_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}x_2`$ with $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$.

Suppose first that $`n`$ is even. For any 3-rung $`R_3`$ with ends $`a_3A_3`$ and $`b_3B_3`$, $`x_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}x_2\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3\text{-}x_1`$ is not an odd hole, and so some vertex of $`R_3`$ is in $`X`$. Since $`XC_3=\mathrm{}`$, and $`a_3`$ has no neighbour in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ from the minimality of $`F`$, and similarly $`b_3`$ has no neighbour in $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1}\}`$, it follows that either $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_3`$, or $`f_n`$ to $`b_3`$ (and not both, since otherwise $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b_3\text{-}R_3\text{-}a_3`$ is an odd hole). From the symmetry we may assume that $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`b_3`$. By exchanging $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ it follows that for every 2-rung with ends $`a_2A_2`$ and $`b_2B_2`$, either $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$ or $`f_n`$ to $`b_2`$, and not both. Suppose that $`f_n`$ is complete to $`B_2B_3`$; then $`f_1`$ has no neighbours in $`S_2S_3`$, and we can add $`f_n`$ to $`B_1`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$ to $`C_1`$, contrary to the maximality of the hyperprism. So $`f_n`$ is not complete to $`B_2B_3`$, and hence $`f_1`$ has a neighbour in one of $`A_2,A_3`$, say $`A_3`$; and by exchanging $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ it follows that for every 1-rung with ends $`a_1A_1`$ and $`b_1B_1`$, either $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ or $`f_n`$ to $`b_1`$ and not both. In particular, $`f_1`$ has no neighbours in $`B`$ and $`f_n`$ has none in $`A`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`A_i^{}`$ be the set of neighbours of $`f_1`$ in $`A_i`$, and let $`A_i^{\prime \prime }=A_iA_i^{}`$; let $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$ be the set of neighbours of $`f_n`$ in $`B_i`$, and let $`B_i^{}=B_iB_i^{\prime \prime }`$. We have shown so far that every $`i`$-rung is either between $`A_i^{}`$ and $`B_i^{}`$ or between $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$. Let $`C_i^{}`$ be the union of the interiors of the $`i`$-rungs between $`A_i^{}`$ and $`B_i^{}`$, and $`C_i^{\prime \prime }`$ the union of the interiors of the $`i`$-rungs between $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$. We observe that $`C_i=C_i^{}C_i^{\prime \prime }`$. Moreover, $`C_i^{}C_i^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{}`$, for otherwise there would be an $`i`$-rung between $`A_i^{}`$ and $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$. For the same reason there are no edges between $`A_i^{}C_i^{}`$ and $`C_i^{\prime \prime }B_i^{\prime \prime }`$, and no edges between $`A_i^{\prime \prime }C_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`C_i^{}B_i^{}`$. We claim that $`A_i^{}`$ is complete to $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$. For if not, let $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ be an $`i`$-rung with ends $`a^{\prime \prime }A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`b^{\prime \prime }B_i^{\prime \prime }`$, and let $`a^{}A_i^{}`$ be nonadjacent to $`a^{\prime \prime }`$. Since we have seen that $`f_1`$ has neighbours in at least two of $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$, we may choose $`aA_j^{}`$ for some $`ji`$. Then $`a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b^{\prime \prime }\text{-}R^{\prime \prime }\text{-}a^{\prime \prime }\text{-}a`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. So $`A_i^{}`$ is complete to $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ for each $`i`$, and similarly $`B_i^{}`$ is complete to $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$ for each $`i`$. We showed already that we may assume that $`A_1^{},A_2^{\prime \prime },A_3^{},A_3^{\prime \prime }`$ are all nonempty. But then the nine sets

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1^{}& C_1^{}& B_1^{}\\ A_2^{}A_3^{}& C_2^{}C_3^{}& B_2^{}B_3^{}\\ A_1^{\prime \prime }A_2^{\prime \prime }A_3^{\prime \prime }\{f_1\}& C_1^{\prime \prime }C_2^{\prime \prime }C_3^{\prime \prime }\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_n\}& B_1^{\prime \prime }B_2^{\prime \prime }B_3^{\prime \prime }\end{array}$$

form a hyperprism, contrary to the maximality of $`V(H)`$. This completes the argument when $`n`$ is even.

Now assume $`n`$ is odd. $`f_1`$ has a neighbour $`a_1`$ say in $`A_1`$; let $`R_1`$ be a 1-rung with ends $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$ say. Similarly let $`R_2`$ be a 2-rung with ends $`a_2`$ and $`b_2`$, where $`b_2B_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_n`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`b_1X`$, and similarly $`a_2X`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, one of $`b_1,a_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$ and the other to $`f_n`$, and neither has any more neighbours in $`F`$. Suppose that $`f_n`$ is not adjacent to $`b_1`$; so $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$, and $`n2`$, and $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$. But then $`b_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves that $`f_n`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$ and $`f_1`$ to $`a_2`$. Hence for all $`1i3`$, and for every $`i`$-rung with ends $`aA`$ and $`bB`$, $`aX`$ if and only if $`bX`$, and if so then $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a`$ and $`f_n`$ to $`b`$. Consequently, for every vertex in $`XA`$, $`f_1`$ is its unique neighbour in $`F`$, and for every vertex in $`XB`$, $`f_n`$ is its unique neighbour in $`F`$. For $`1i3`$, let

$`A_i^{}=A_iX`$
$`B_i^{}=B_iX`$
$`A_i^{\prime \prime }=A_iX`$
$`B_i^{\prime \prime }=B_iX.`$
Let $`C_i^{}`$ be the union of the interior of the $`i`$-rungs between $`A_i^{}`$ and $`B_i^{}`$, and $`C_i^{\prime \prime }`$ the union of the interior of the $`i`$-rungs between $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$. We have seen that every $`i`$-rung is of one of these two types, and so $`C_i=C_i^{}C_i^{\prime \prime }`$. Moreover, since there is no rung between $`A_i^{}`$ and $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$, it follows that $`C_i^{}C_i^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{}`$, and there are no edges between $`A_i^{}C_i^{}`$ and $`C_i^{\prime \prime }B_i^{\prime \prime }`$, and similarly no edges between $`A_i^{\prime \prime }C_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`C_i^{}B_i^{}`$. We have seen that $`f_1`$ has neighbours in at least two of $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$, and $`f_n`$ has neighbours in at least two of $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$. We claim that also $`f_1`$ has nonneighbours in at least two of $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$, and the same for $`f_n`$. For suppose not, and $`f_1`$ is complete to $`A_1A_2`$ say. Then $`f_n`$ is complete to $`B_1B_2`$; by 10.5 we may assume that $`n>1`$, and so we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A_3`$, $`f_n`$ to $`B_3`$ and $`f_2,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$ to $`C_3`$, contrary to the maximality of $`V(H)`$. This proves that $`f_1`$ has nonneighbours in at least two of $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$, and similarly $`f_n`$ has nonneighbours in at least two of $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$. Let $`1i3`$; we claim that $`A_i^{}`$ is complete to $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$. For we may assume that $`i=1`$; suppose that $`a^{}A_1^{}`$ and $`a^{\prime \prime }A_1^{\prime \prime }`$ are nonadjacent, and let $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ be a $`1`$-rung with ends $`a^{\prime \prime },b^{\prime \prime }`$. Choose $`aA_2^{\prime \prime }A_3^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`bB_2^{}B_3^{}`$; then $`a,b`$ are not adjacent since all rungs have even length, and so $`a\text{-}a^{}\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b\text{-}b^{\prime \prime }\text{-}R^{\prime \prime }\text{-}a^{\prime \prime }\text{-}a`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves that $`A_i^{}`$ is complete to $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$, and similarly $`B_i^{}`$ is complete to $`B_i^{\prime \prime }`$. We have seen that we may assume that $`A_1^{},A_2^{}`$ are nonempty. But then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1^{}& C_1^{}& B_1^{}\\ A_2^{}A_3^{}& C_2^{}C_3^{}& B_2^{}B_3^{}\\ A_1^{\prime \prime }A_2^{\prime \prime }A_3^{\prime \prime }\{f_1\}& C_1^{\prime \prime }C_2^{\prime \prime }C_3^{\prime \prime }\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{n1}\}& B_1^{\prime \prime }B_2^{\prime \prime }B_3^{\prime \prime }\{f_n\}\end{array}$$

is a hyperprism, contrary to the maximality of $`V(H)`$. This proves (2).

Suppose $`F`$ is a component of $`V(G)V(H)`$, and all its attachments are in $`A`$. Then $`(V(G)A,A)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. We must show that $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. Choose $`b_2B_2`$ and $`a_3A_3`$. Then $`B_1C_1\{b_2\}`$ is connected, and all vertices in $`A_1`$ have neighbours in it. By 2.6, $`(B_1C_1\{b_2\},A_1)`$ is balanced, and so by 2.7.1, so is $`(A_1,F)`$. By 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. So we may assume there is no such $`F`$, and the same for $`B`$.

From (2) it follows that for every component of $`V(G)V(H)`$, all its attachments in $`H`$ are a subset of one of $`S_1,S_2,S_3`$. Let $`X`$ be the union of $`S_1`$ and all components of $`V(G)V(H)`$ whose attachment set is a subset of $`S_1`$, and let $`Y=V(G)X`$. Then $`|Y|4`$, and so either $`(X,Y)`$ is a 2-join in $`G`$, or $`|X|=3`$ and both $`A_1,B_1`$ have one element and $`X`$ is the vertex set of a path between these two vertices. We may assume the latter, and the same for $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$; and so $`|V(G)|=9`$, and $`G`$ is an even prism. This proves 10.6.

## 11 Step-connected strips

Our next target is the statement analogous to 10.6 for long odd prisms, but we need to creep up on it in stages. (A warning: we shall not prove the exact analogue, and we don’t know if it is true. We need to permit more types of decomposition, namely 2-joins in $`\overline{G}`$, and M-joins.) The key idea is to start with a prism of three paths, $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$, where $`R_0`$ has length $`3`$, and to grow the union of the other two paths into a kind of strip (one strip, not two) with a richer internal structure than we have seen hitherto, what we call being “step-connected”. If we expand the union of these two paths into a maximal step-connected strip, then the remainder of the graph attaches to this structure in ways that we can exploit. In this section we introduce step-connected strips, and prove some preliminary lemmas about them.

Let $`(A,C,B)`$ be a strip in $`G`$. A step is a pair $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ of rungs so that

* $`V(R_1)V(R_2)=\mathrm{}`$
* $`a_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$, and $`b_1`$ to $`b_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(R_1)`$ and $`V(R_2)`$.

The edges $`a_1a_2`$ and $`b_1b_2`$ such that there exists a step as above are called stepped edges. We say that the strip is step-connected if every vertex of $`ABC`$ is in a step, and for every partition $`(X,Y)`$ of $`A`$ or of $`B`$ into two nonempty sets, there is a step $`R_1,R_2`$ so that $`R_1`$ has an end in $`X`$ and $`R_2`$ has an end in $`Y`$. (This second condition is equivalent to requiring that the subgraph of $`G`$ with vertex set $`A`$ and edges the stepped edges within $`A`$ be connected, and the same for $`B`$.)

Let $`(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in a Berge graph $`G`$. A vertex $`vV(G)(ABC)`$ is a left-star for the strip if it is complete to $`A`$ and anticomplete to $`BC`$, and it is a right-star if it is complete to $`B`$ and anticomplete to $`AC`$. A banister (with respect to the strip) is a path $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ of $`G(ABC)`$, such that $`a`$ is a left-star, $`b`$ is a right-star, and there are no edges between the interior of $`R`$ and $`V(S)`$. (Here we distinguish between $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ and $`b\text{-}R\text{-}a`$; we follow the convention that when describing a banister relative to a strip, the end which is the left-star is listed first.) A banister can have length 1.

###### 11.1

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no nondegenerate appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in $`G`$, and let $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ be a banister. Suppose that $`vV(G)V(S)`$ has a neighbour in $`AC`$, and has no neighbour in $`B`$; and that $`P`$ is a path in $`G(V(S)\{a_0\})`$ from $`v`$ to $`b_0`$, and there are no edges between $`P^{}`$ and $`V(S)`$. Then $`v`$ is a left-star.

Proof. Let $`F`$ be a connected subset of $`V(P)`$, containing $`v`$ and disjoint from $`V(R_0)`$, and with an attachment in $`R_0a_0`$.
(1) For every step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ , if $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1R_2`$ then $`v`$ is adjacent to $`a_1,a_2`$ and to no other vertices of $`R_1R_2`$.
For assume $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1`$ say, and hence in $`R_1b_1`$. Now $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$ form a prism $`K`$ say, and no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$ since no vertex in $`F`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$ or $`b_2`$. Yet $`F`$ has an attachment in $`R_0a_0`$ and one in $`R_1b_1`$, so its set of attachments is not local. Since $`b_1`$ is not an attachment of $`F`$, it follows from 10.4 that $`F`$ has an attachment in $`R_2`$; and therefore $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2b_2`$. If $`v`$ has any neighbours in $`R_1R_2`$ different from $`a_1,a_2`$, say a neighbour in the interior of $`R_1`$, then $`v`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`b_0,b_1,b_2`$, via the paths $`v\text{-}P\text{-}b_0`$, from $`v`$ to $`b_1`$ with interior in $`R_1a_1`$, and from $`v`$ to $`b_2`$ with interior in $`R_2`$; but this contradicts 2.4. This proves (1).

From (1) it follows that $`v`$ has no neighbour in $`C`$ (since every vertex is in a step), and therefore $`v`$ has at least one neighbour in $`A`$; and from (1) again, $`v`$ has no nonneighbour in $`A`$ (for otherwise we could choose the step in (1) with $`v`$ adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$, since the strip is step-connected.) This proves 11.1.

###### 11.2

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$. Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in $`G`$, and let $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ be a banister. Let $`vV(G)V(S)`$ have a neighbour in $`V(S)`$, and be nonadjacent to $`b_0`$. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G(V(S)\{a_0\})`$ from $`v`$ to $`b_0`$, and let $`Q`$ be a path in $`G(V(S)\{b_0\})`$ from $`v`$ to $`a_0`$, such there are no edges from $`P^{}Q^{}`$ to $`V(S)`$. Then either $`v`$ is $`B`$-complete, or $`v`$ is a left-star.

Proof. If $`v`$ has no neighbours in $`B`$, then by 11.1 $`v`$ is a left-star, so we may assume $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`B`$. Since we may assume it is not $`B`$-complete, there is a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ such that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$ and not to $`b_2`$. Let $`FV(Q)`$ be connected, containing $`v`$ and disjoint from $`V(R_0)`$, with an attachment in $`R_0b_0`$. Now $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$ form a prism $`K`$ say, and no vertex of $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K`$ since none of them has two neighbours in $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}`$. But there is an attachment of $`F`$ in $`R_0b_0`$, and $`b_1`$ is also an attachment of $`F`$, so its set of attachments is not local with respect to the prism. By 10.1, one of 10.1.1-4 holds. Since there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, 10.1.1 does not hold. Also 10.1.2, 10.1.3 do not hold, since $`v`$ is the only vertex in $`F`$ with neighbours in $`AB`$. So 10.1.4 holds, and therefore $`F`$ has an attachment in $`R_2`$, and so $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2`$. But then $`v`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}`$, via $`v\text{-}P\text{-}b_0`$, $`v\text{-}b_1`$, and the path from $`v`$ to $`b_2`$ with interior in $`R_2`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves 11.2.

We remark:

###### 11.3

Let $`G`$ be Berge, containing no even prism, let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in $`G`$, and let $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ be a banister. Then every rung of the strip has odd length.

Proof. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step. Then these three paths form a prism, and it is not an even prism by hypothesis. In particular $`R_0`$ has odd length, by 7.2. For any rung $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$, the hole $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b\text{-}R\text{-}a\text{-}a_0`$ has even length, and so $`R`$ is odd. This proves 11.3.

###### 11.4

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ and no even prism in $`G`$. Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in $`G`$. Let $`FV(G)(ABC)`$ be connected, such that there are no edges between $`F`$ and $`ABC`$. There is no anticonnected set $`QV(G)(ABCF)`$ such that:

* some right-star has a neighbour in $`F`$ and a nonneighbour in $`Q`$,
* some vertex in $`B`$ has a nonneighbour in $`Q`$,
* some left-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is $`Q`$-complete,
* every vertex in $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$,
* every vertex in $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$, and
* no vertex in $`Q`$ is a left-star.

Proof. Suppose that such a set $`Q`$ exists. Let $`a_0`$ be a left-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ complete to $`Q`$, and let $`b_0`$ be a right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ and a nonneighbour in $`Q`$. Let $`R_0`$ be a path between $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$ with interior in $`F`$. Hence $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ is a banister. By 11.3 $`R_0`$ and every rung has odd length. Since some vertex in $`B`$ has a nonneighbour in $`F`$, there is an antipath $`q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n`$ in $`Q`$ such that $`q_1`$ is not adjacent to $`b_0`$ and $`q_n`$ is not adjacent to some vertex in $`B`$. Choose such an antipath with $`n`$ minimum. Let $`B_1`$ be the set of neighbours of $`q_n`$ in $`B`$, and $`B_2=BB_1`$. So $`B_2\mathrm{}`$, and by 11.1 it follows that $`B_1\mathrm{}`$. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ with $`b_1B_1`$ and $`b_2B_2`$.
(1) $`n2`$.
For suppose $`n=1`$. Then $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$ and to $`b_1`$, and not to $`b_0`$, so by 10.4, $`q_1`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2b_2`$. Since $`q_1`$ also has a neighbour in $`F`$, it can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}`$, via a path from $`q_1`$ to $`b_0`$ with interior in $`F`$, the path $`q_1\text{-}b_1`$, and the path from $`q_1`$ to $`b_2`$ with interior in $`R_2`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves (1).
(2) $`(ABC,\{b_0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\})`$ is balanced.
For $`b_1B_1`$ is complete to $`\{b_0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ from the minimality of $`n`$. But $`b_1`$ has no neighbour in $`F`$, so by 2.6, $`(F,\{b_0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\})`$ is balanced. Since $`F`$ is connected and every vertex in $`\{b_0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$, the claim follows from 2.7.1. This proves (2).

Now the path $`a_0\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_1`$ is odd, and its ends are complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$; so by (2) and 2.1, there are two adjacent vertices $`u,v`$ in this path, both complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$. Since $`b_2`$ is not adjacent to $`q_n`$, it follows that $`u,v\{a_0\}V(R_2b_2)`$. Suppose that the hole $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_0`$ has length $`6`$. Then one of $`u,v`$ is nonadjacent to both $`b_0,b_2`$, say $`v`$, and hence $`n`$ is odd, since $`v\text{-}b_0\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}b_2\text{-}v`$ is an antihole; but $`b_1`$ is adjacent to $`b_0`$ and $`b_2`$, and has no other neighbours in this hole, and is complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, contrary to 3.3. So the hole has length 4, and in particular $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`b_2`$ and is complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and $`a_0`$ is adjacent to $`b_0`$. Hence $`n`$ is odd, because $`b_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_0\text{-}b_1`$ is an antihole, and so $`a_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}b_2`$ is an odd antipath, contrary to (2). This proves 11.4.

A triple $`(S,F,Q)`$ is called a 1-breaker in $`G`$ if it satisfies the following.

* $`S=(A,C,B)`$ is a step-connected strip in $`G`$,
* $`FV(G)V(S)`$ is connected, such that there are no edges between $`F`$ and $`V(S)`$, and there is a left- and right-star, both with neighbours in $`F`$,
* $`QV(G)(V(S)F)`$ is anticonnected,
* some vertex in $`A`$ has a nonneighbour in $`Q`$, and so does some vertex in $`B`$,
* every vertex in $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$ and a neighbour in $`ABC`$,
* some left-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is $`Q`$-complete,
* no vertex in $`Q`$ is a left-star.

###### 11.5

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$ and no even prism in $`G`$. If there is a 1-breaker in $`G`$ then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Suppose that some 1-breaker $`(S,F,Q)`$ exists, and for fixed $`G`$ and $`S`$, choose $`F`$ and $`Q`$ with $`|F|+|Q|`$ maximum so that all the hypotheses of the theorem remain satisfied (possibly exchanging “left” and “right”). Let $`N`$ be the set of vertices of $`G`$ not in $`F`$ but with a neighbour in $`F`$. Hence $`QN`$, and every left- or right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is in $`N`$. Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$.
(1) Every vertex in $`N`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$.
For suppose $`vV(G)F`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$ and has none in $`ABC`$. Let $`F^{}=F\{v\}`$. Certainly $`F^{}`$ is connected and disjoint from $`ABC`$, and there are no edges between $`F^{}`$ and $`ABC`$; and $`F^{}`$ is disjoint from $`Q`$ since every vertex in $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$. It follows that the hypotheses of the theorem remain true, contrary to the maximality of $`|F|+|Q|`$. This proves (1).
(2) There is no left- or right-star in $`Q`$, and every left- and right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is $`Q`$-complete.
For we are given that there is no left-star in $`Q`$. Suppose there is a right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$, either in $`Q`$ or with a nonneighbour in $`Q`$. Then there is an antipath with interior in $`Q`$, between $`B`$ and some right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$; but the set of vertices in such an antipath contradicts 11.4. So there is no right-star in $`Q`$, and every right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is $`Q`$-complete. We are given that there is a right-star with a neighbour in $`F`$, and so all hypotheses of the theorem are true with “left” and “right” exchanged. It follows by the same argument, therefore, that every left-star with a neighbour in $`F`$ is $`Q`$-complete. This proves (2).

Since $`QN`$ is anticonnected, it is contained in some anticonnected component of $`N`$, say $`N_1`$.
(3) There is a left- or right-star in $`N_1`$.
For let $`N_2`$ be the union of all the anticomponents of $`N`$ different from $`N_1`$. Assume that no left- and right-star is in $`N_1`$. Let $`Y=V(G)(FN)`$; then there are no edges between $`F`$ and $`Y`$, from definition of $`N`$. Also, $`ABCY`$, so in particular $`Y\mathrm{}`$, and also $`N_2\mathrm{}`$ since by hypothesis there is a left-star in $`N`$. Hence $`(FY,N)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. By (1), every vertex in $`N`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$ and in $`F`$, and so every vertex in $`N_1`$ has a neighbour in $`B`$ (since otherwise it would be a left-star by 11.1 and therefore belong to $`N_2`$). Now $`(BC,N_1)`$ is balanced, by 2.6, since any left-star is complete to $`N_1`$ and anticomplete to $`BC`$. Since $`BC`$ is connected (because every vertex of $`BC`$ is in a step and the strip is step-connected), it follows from 2.7.1 that $`(F,N_1)`$ is balanced. From 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, a contradiction. This proves (3).

From (3), $`N_1Q`$; and hence there is a vertex $`vNQ`$ with a nonneighbour in $`Q`$. From the maximality of $`|F|+|Q|`$, replacing $`Q`$ by $`Q\{v\}`$ violates one of the hypotheses of the theorem. But $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$ by (1); $`vF`$ since it belongs to $`N`$; $`v`$ is not a left-star since all left-stars in $`N`$ are $`Q`$-complete by (2); and so no left-star in $`N`$ is $`Q\{v\}`$-complete. Since they are all $`Q`$-complete, it follows that $`v`$ is nonadjacent to every left-star in $`N`$ . Similarly $`v`$ is nonadjacent to every right-star in $`N`$.
(4) $`v`$ is complete to $`AB`$.
For suppose not; then from the symmetry we may assume that $`v`$ has a nonneighbour in $`B`$. By 11.2, $`v`$ is a left-star, a contradiction. This proves (4).

Choose an antipath $`v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k`$ in $`Q`$, such that $`q_k`$ has a nonneighbour in $`AB`$, with $`k`$ minimum. From (4), $`k1`$. From the minimality of $`k`$, $`\{v,q_1,\mathrm{},q_{k1}\}`$ is complete to $`AB`$. Let $`A_1`$ be the set of neighbours of $`q_k`$ in $`A`$, and $`A_2=AA_1`$, and define $`B_1,B_2B`$ similarly. So $`A_2B_2`$ is nonempty.
(5) $`k`$ is odd.
For $`A_2B_2`$ is nonempty. If there exists $`a_2A_2`$, let $`b_0N`$ be a right-star; then

$$b_0\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}a_2\text{-}b_0$$

is an antihole, so it follows that $`k`$ is odd. The result follows similarly if $`B_2`$ is nonempty.
(6) $`A_1`$ is complete to $`B_2`$, and $`A_2`$ is complete to $`B_1`$.
For suppose that $`a_1A_1`$ and $`b_2B_2`$ are nonadjacent. Let $`b_0N`$ be a right-star; then by (5),

$$b_0\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_0$$

is an odd antihole, a contradiction. So $`A_1`$ is complete to $`B_2`$ and similarly $`A_2`$ is complete to $`B_1`$. This proves (6).
(7) $`A_1,B_1,A_2,B_2`$ are all nonempty.
For we may assume that $`A_2`$ is nonempty. Since the strip is step-connected, every vertex in $`A`$ has a nonneighbour in $`B`$, and so by (6), $`B_1B`$. Hence $`B_2`$ is also nonempty. Since $`q_k`$ has a neighbour in $`ABC`$ it follows that it has a neighbour in $`B`$, by 11.1, and similarly it has a neighbour in $`A`$. This proves (7).

Now the strip is step-connected, and so there is a step $`a_1\text{-}R\text{-}b_2,a_2\text{-}R^{}\text{-}b_1`$ with $`a_1A_1`$ and $`a_2A_2`$. Since $`a_1`$ is not adjacent to $`b_1`$ it follows that $`b_1B_1`$ by (6), and similarly $`b_2B_2`$. Also by (6), $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ both have length 1. Let $`a_0N`$ be a left-star and $`b_0N`$ a right-star. Since $`v\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}v`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`a_0`$ is not adjacent to $`b_0`$.

For every vertex $`uV(G)F`$, let $`F_u`$ be the set of vertices in $`F`$ adjacent to $`u`$.
(8) $`F_{a_0}F_{b_0}=\mathrm{}`$, and every path in $`F`$ between $`F_{a_0}`$ and $`F_{b_0}`$ meets both $`F_v`$ and $`F_{q_k}`$.
For if $`fF_{a_0}F_{b_0}`$, then $`f\text{-}a_0\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}f`$ is an odd hole, so $`F_{a_0}F_{b_0}=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`p_1\text{-}P\text{-}p_2`$ be a path in $`F`$ between $`F_{a_0}`$ and $`F_{b_0}`$, with $`V(P)`$ minimal, where $`p_1F_{a_0}`$ and $`p_2F_{b_0}`$. Hence

$$a_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}P\text{-}p_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_0$$

is a hole, and so $`P`$ is odd. If $`P`$ does not meet $`F_v`$ then

$$v\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}P\text{-}p_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}v$$

is an odd hole, while if $`P`$ does not meet $`F_{q_k}`$ then

$$q_k\text{-}a_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}P\text{-}p_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}q_k$$

is an odd hole, in both cases a contradiction. This proves (8).
(9) Every path in $`F`$ between $`F_v`$ and $`F_{q_k}`$ meets both $`F_{a_0}`$ and $`F_{b_0}`$.
For suppose not; then since $`F`$ is connected and $`F_{a_0}F_{b_0}=\mathrm{}`$, there is a connected subset $`F^{}`$ of $`F`$ meeting both $`F_v`$, $`F_{q_k}`$ and meeting exactly one of $`F_{a_0},F_{b_0}`$. From the symmetry we may assume $`F^{}`$ meets $`F_{a_0}`$ and not $`F_{b_0}`$. Define $`q_{k+1}=a_2`$; then $`q_{k+1}`$ has no neighbour in $`F^{}`$, so we may choose $`i`$ with $`1ik+1`$ minimum so that $`q_i`$ has no neighbour in $`F^{}`$. Note that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`F^{}`$ (because $`F^{}`$ meets $`F_v`$). If $`i`$ is even, then $`b_0\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_i`$ is an odd antipath; its internal vertices have neighbours in $`F^{}`$, and its ends do not, and $`a_1`$ is complete to its interior and has no neighbours in $`F^{}`$, contrary to 2.2 in the complement. If $`i`$ is odd, then $`b_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_i`$ is an odd antipath, and its internal vertices have neighbours in $`F^{}`$ and its ends do not, and again $`a_1`$ is complete to its interior and has no neighbours in $`F^{}`$, contrary to 2.2 in the complement. This proves (9).

Let $`f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ be a minimal path in $`F`$ between $`F_{a_0}`$ and $`F_{b_0}`$, where $`f_1F_{a_0}`$ and $`f_nF_{b_0}`$. Then $`n2`$ by (8), and by (8) and (9) it follows that $`f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n`$ is also a minimal path between $`F_v`$ and $`F_{q_k}`$, so we may assume that $`f_1F_v`$, $`f_nF_{q_k}`$, and no other vertex of the path is in either set. Then $`f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}q_k\text{-}a_0\text{-}f_1`$ and $`f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_n\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}v\text{-}f_1`$ are both holes, of different parity, a contradiction. This proves 11.5.

## 12 Attachments in a staircase

For the next step of our approach towards the long odd prism, let us fix a little more than just the strip. Let $`S=(A,C,B)`$ be a step-connected strip in $`G`$, and let $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ be a banister of length $`3`$. We call the pair $`K=(S,R_0)`$ a staircase, and define $`V(K)=V(R_0)V(S)`$. (For brevity we often speak of the staircase $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$, meaning that $`K=(S,R_0)`$ is a staircase, and $`S=(A,C,B)`$, and $`R_0`$ has ends $`a_0,b_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is a left-star and $`b_0`$ is a right-star.) The staircase is maximal if there is no staircase $`(S^{}=(A^{},C^{},B^{}),a_0^{}\text{-}R_0^{}\text{-}b_0^{})`$ such that $`AA^{},BB^{},CC^{},V(S)V(S^{})`$.

Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a staircase in $`G`$. Some definitions (all with respect to $`K`$):

* A subset $`XV(K)`$ is local if $`X`$ is a subset of one of $`V(S),V(R_0),A\{a_0\},B\{b_0\}`$
* $`vV(G)V(K)`$ is minor if its set of neighbours in $`V(K)`$ is local
* $`vV(G)V(K)`$ is major if it has neighbours in all of $`A`$,$`B`$ and $`V(R_0)`$
* $`vV(G)V(K)`$ is left-diagonal if $`v`$ is $`(A\{b_0\})`$-complete, and right-diagonal if it is $`(B\{a_0\})`$-complete
* $`vV(G)V(K)`$ is central if it is $`(AB)`$-complete, and is nonadjacent to both $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$

First let us examine the possible types of vertices outside the staircase.

###### 12.1

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, no even prism in $`G`$, and no 1-breaker in $`G`$. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a maximal staircase in $`G`$, and let $`vV(G)V(K)`$. Then exactly one of the following holds:

1. $`v`$ is minor.
2. $`v`$ is major; and in that case, it is either left- or right-diagonal or central.
3. $`v`$ is a left-star with a neighbour in $`R_0a_0`$, or a right-star with a neighbour in $`R_0b_0`$.

Proof.
(1) If $`v`$ is left- or right-diagonal then the theorem holds.
For assume $`v`$ is right-diagonal say. If it has no neighbours in $`AC`$ then statement 3 of the theorem holds, so we assume there is a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ such that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1b_1`$. Hence it can be linked onto the triangle $`\{a_0,a_1,a_2\}`$, via $`v\text{-}a_0`$, the path from $`v`$ to $`a_1`$ with interior in $`R_1b_1`$, and the path from $`v`$ to $`a_2`$ with interior in $`R_2`$, and so by 2.4, $`v`$ has neighbours in $`A`$. So it is major, and therefore statement 2 holds. This proves (1).
(2) If $`v`$ is adjacent to both $`a_0,b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For then it has a neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$, since $`R_0`$ is odd and has length $`3`$ and $`v`$ is adjacent to both its ends; and we may assume that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`V(S)`$, for otherwise statement 1 of the theorem holds. If $`v`$ has no neighbour in $`B`$ then it is a left-star by 11.1, and statement 3 of the theorem holds, so we may assume it has neighbours in $`B`$ and similarly in $`A`$. Hence it is major. Since $`(S,V(R_0^{}),\{v\})`$ is not a 1-breaker, $`v`$ does not have nonneighbours in both $`A`$ and $`B`$, so it is either left- or right-diagonal and the claim follows from (1). This proves (2).
(3) If $`v`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$ and not to $`b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For we may assume $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`V(S)`$. If $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$, then by 11.2 it is either $`B`$-complete (when it is right-diagonal and the claim follows from (1)) or a left-star (when statement 3 holds). So we may assume it has no neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$. We may assume it has a neighbour in $`BC`$, for otherwise it is minor; let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step so that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1a_1`$, and in addition so that $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`b_2`$ if possible. By 10.4, $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2`$. If $`a_2`$ is its only neighbour in $`R_2`$, then the strip $`S^{}=(A\{v\},C,B)`$ is step-connected, since $`v\text{-}R\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ is an $`S^{}`$-step where $`R`$ is the path from $`v`$ to $`b_1`$ with interior in $`R_1a_1`$; and this is contrary to the maximality of the staircase. So $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2a_2`$; and hence $`v`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}`$ via $`v\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$, and for $`i=1,2`$, the path from $`v`$ to $`b_i`$ with interior in $`R_ia_i`$. By 2.4 it follows that $`v`$ is adjacent to both $`b_1,b_2`$; and hence from our choice of the step $`R_1,R_2`$, and since the strip is step-connected, it follows that $`v`$ is right-diagonal, and the claim follows from (1). This proves (3).
(4) If $`v`$ is nonadjacent to both $`a_0,b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For then we may assume that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$ and in $`V(S)`$, since otherwise it is minor. If it is a left-star then statement 3 holds, so we assume not; and then by 11.2, it is $`B`$-complete. Similarly it is $`A`$-complete and therefore central, and statement 2 holds. This proves (4).

But (2)-(4) cover all the possibilities, up to symmetry, and this completes the proof of 12.1.

Now let us do the same thing for connected sets.

###### 12.2

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, no even prism in $`G`$, and no 1-breaker in $`G`$. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a maximal staircase in $`G`$, and let $`FV(G)V(K)`$ be connected, so that its set of attachments in $`V(K)`$ is not local with respect to $`K`$. Then $`F`$ contains either:

1. a major vertex, or
2. a banister $`u\text{-}R\text{-}v`$, so that there are no edges between $`V(R)`$ and $`V(R_0)`$, or
3. (up to symmetry) a path $`u\text{-}R\text{-}v`$, where $`u`$ is a left-star, $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0a_0`$, and there are no edges between $`V(Ru)`$ and $`V(S)`$.

Proof. Let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(K)`$. We may assume that $`F`$ is minimal (connected) so that $`X`$ is not local. Now a subset of $`V(K)`$ is local if and only if it does not meet both $`AC`$ and $`V(R_0a_0)`$ and does not meet both $`BC`$ and $`V(R_0b_0)`$; so we may assume that $`X`$ meets both $`AC`$ and $`V(R_0a_0)`$, and therefore from the minimality of $`F`$, there is a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ where $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`f_1`$ is the unique vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`AC`$, and $`f_k`$ is the unique vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`V(R_0a_0)`$. If $`k=1`$ then the claim follows from 12.1, so we may assume that $`k2`$.
(1) If $`f_1`$ is $`A`$-complete then the theorem holds.
For assume $`f_1`$ is $`A`$-complete. If there is no edge between $`F`$ and $`BC`$, then statement 3 of the theorem holds, so we assume that there is such an edge. Choose $`i`$ with $`1ik`$ minimum so that $`f_i`$ has a neighbour in $`BC`$. Suppose first that there is no edge between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`V(R_0)`$. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step so that $`f_i`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1a_1`$, and in addition so that $`f_i`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_2`$ if possible. With respect to the prism formed by $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$, the set of attachments of $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ is not local, and so by 10.4, $`i2`$ and its attachments in the prism are $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$. Hence the only edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`V(R_1R_2)`$ are $`f_1a_1,f_1a_2,f_ib_1,f_ib_2`$. From our choice of the step it follows that $`f_i`$ is $`B`$-complete. Consequently any step satisfies the condition we imposed on $`R_1,R_2`$, and so the same conclusion follows for every step; that is, statement 2 of the theorem holds. Now assume that there is an edge between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`V(R_0)`$. Suppose that $`i<k`$; then there is no edge between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`R_0a_0`$, from the minimality of $`F`$, and so $`a_0`$ is an attachment of $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$. But this set also has an attachment in $`BC`$, so its set of attachments is not local, contrary to the minimality of $`F`$. This proves that $`i=k`$. Since $`k2`$, the minimality of $`F`$ implies that there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`V(R_0b_0)`$; and so $`b_0`$ is the unique neighbour of $`f_k`$ in $`R_0`$. Hence there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`AC`$, from the minimality of $`F`$. Also, there are no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ and $`BC`$, from the minimality of $`i`$. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ so that $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$, and in addition so that $`f_k`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_2`$ if possible. Since $`R_1`$ is odd and $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ is a hole, it follows that $`k`$ is even. Since $`a_2\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}a_2`$ is not an odd hole, $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`b_2`$, and therefore to all $`B`$ from our choice of the step. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}a_0\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole and $`R_0`$ is odd, it follows that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$. But then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A`$, $`f_k`$ to $`B`$, and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ to $`C`$, contrary to the maximality of the staircase. This proves (1).

By (1), we may assume there is a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ such that $`f_1`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1b_1`$, and $`a_2`$ is not adjacent to $`f_1`$. Then $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$ form a prism $`K^{}`$ say, and the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(K^{})`$ is not local with respect to $`K^{}`$. Suppose that some vertex $`v`$ in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K^{}`$. Then we claim $`v`$ is major with respect to $`K`$. For it has a neighbour in $`A`$ and in $`B`$, and if it has none in $`R_0`$ then it is adjacent to all of $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$, in which case $`v\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}v`$ is an odd hole. So $`v`$ is major with respect to $`K`$, and hence the theorem holds. Hence we may assume that no vertex in $`F`$ is major with respect to $`K^{}`$, and so we may apply 10.1. By hypothesis, 10.1.1 does not hold. Since no vertex of $`F`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$, 10.1.2 does not hold.

Suppose that 10.1.3 holds. Since $`f_1`$ is not adjacent to $`a_2`$, it follows that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_0,a_1`$, and there exists $`i`$ with $`2ik`$ such that $`f_i`$ is adjacent to $`b_0,b_1`$, and there are no other edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`V(K^{})`$. Then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A`$, $`f_i`$ to $`B`$ and $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_{i1}\}`$ to $`C`$, contrary to the maximality of the staircase. So 10.1.3 does not hold.

Hence 10.1.4 holds, that is, there is a path $`p_1\text{-}P\text{-}p_2`$ in $`F`$, such that for some $`j`$ with $`0j2`$, either:

* $`p_1`$ is adjacent to the two vertices in $`\{a_0,a_1,a_2\}\{a_j\}`$, and $`p_2`$ has neighbours in $`R_ja_j`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(K^{})\{a_j\}`$, or
* $`p_1`$ is adjacent to the two vertices in $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}\{b_j\}`$, and $`p_2`$ has neighbours in $`R_jb_j`$, and there are no other edges between $`V(P)`$ and $`V(K^{})\{b_j\}`$

From the minimality of $`F`$, $`F=V(P)`$. If $`j>0`$ then in the first case we can add $`p_1`$ to $`A`$ and $`V(Pp_1)`$ to $`C`$, contrary to the maximality of the staircase; and in the second case we do the same with $`A`$ and $`B`$ exchanged. So $`j=0`$. The first case is impossible since no vertex in $`F`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$; and the second case is impossible since $`f_1F=V(P)`$ and $`f_1`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1b_1`$. This proves 12.2.

The previous result can be strengthened as follows.

###### 12.3

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in $`G`$, no even prism in $`G`$, and no 1-breaker in $`G`$. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a maximal staircase in $`G`$, and let $`FV(G)V(S)`$ be connected, containing a left-star and with an attachment in $`BC`$. (Note that $`F`$ may intersect $`V(R_0)`$.) Then $`F`$ contains either a major vertex or a banister.

Proof. We may assume $`F`$ is minimal (possibly exchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$); so $`F`$ is the vertex set of a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$, where $`f_1`$ is the unique left-star in $`F`$, and $`f_k`$ is the only vertex in $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`BC`$. Since $`f_1`$ is a left-star and $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`BC`$ it follows that $`k2`$. We may assume there is no major vertex in $`F`$.
(1) We may assume that none of $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k`$ is a right-star, and that $`f_k`$ is not $`B`$-complete.
For if there is a right-star in $`F`$, then it must be $`f_k`$; and then from the minimality of $`F`$ (exchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$), no vertex of $`F`$ different from $`f_1`$ has a neighbour in $`AC`$, and so $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ is a banister. So we may assume that there is no right-star in $`F`$. Since $`f_k`$ is neither major nor a right-star, by 12.1 it is not $`B`$-complete. This proves (1).
(2) $`FV(R_0)=\mathrm{}`$, and there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$.
For by (1), $`b_0F`$. Suppose that either $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ intersects $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$, or there is an edge joining these two sets. Choose $`i`$ with $`2ik`$ maximum so that either $`f_iV(R_0)\{b_0\}`$ or $`f_i`$ has a neighbour in $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$. We claim that $`f_iV(R_0)`$. For if $`i=k`$ this is true, since $`f_k`$ has neighbours in $`BC`$; and if $`i<k`$ then $`f_{i+1}`$ has no neighbour in $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$ from the maximality of $`i`$, and therefore again $`f_iV(R_0)`$. So none of $`f_i,\mathrm{},f_k`$ belong to $`V(R_0)`$. Since $`\{f_i,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ has attachments in $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$ and in $`BC`$, and contains no major vertex or left- or right-star, this contradicts 12.2. So $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ is disjoint from $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$ and hence from $`V(R_0)`$, and there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`V(R_0)\{b_0\}`$. Since there is an edge between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`f_1`$ it follows that $`f_1V(R_0)`$, and so $`FV(R_0)=\mathrm{}`$. This proves (2).

Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step such that $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`R_1\{a_1\}`$ and $`f_k`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_2`$. (This exists since $`f_k`$ is not $`B`$-complete.)
(3) $`f_1a_2`$ is the only edge between $`F`$ and $`R_2`$.
For if $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`R_2`$, then its neighbour set in the prism formed by $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$ is not local with respect to that prism, and therefore by 10.4, $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0`$; and then by 12.1 it is major, a contradiction. So $`f_k`$ has no neighbours in $`R_2`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, there are no edges between $`F`$ and $`R_2a_2`$. Suppose that $`a_2`$ has a neighbour in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$, and choose $`i`$ maximum so that $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_i`$. Since $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`V(R_1)\{a_1\}`$, the set of attachments of $`\{f_i,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ is not local with respect to the prism formed by $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$; and since $`b_2`$ is not an attachment, it follows from 10.4 that there is an attachment of $`\{f_i,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ in $`V(R_0)`$. By (2), $`b_0`$ has a neighbour in $`\{f_i,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$; but then $`\{f_i,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ violates 12.2. This proves (3).
(4) $`b_0`$ has neighbours in $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$.
For first suppose that $`b_0`$ has no neighbour in $`F`$. Since $`b_2`$ is not an attachment of $`F`$, it follows from 10.4 (applied to $`F`$ and the prism formed by $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$) that there is an edge between $`F`$ and $`V(R_0)`$, and so $`f_1`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0`$. But then $`f_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_0,b_1,b_2\}`$, via the path between $`f_1`$ and $`b_0`$ with interior in $`V(R_0)`$, the path between $`f_1`$ and $`b_1`$ with interior in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}(V(R_1)\{a_1,b_1\})`$, and the path $`f_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$. This contradicts 2.4, and therefore proves that $`b_0`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$. Suppose that $`f_k`$ is the only neighbour of $`b_0`$ in $`F`$. Then since $`f_k`$ is not major, its unique neighbour in $`R_1`$ is $`b_1`$. From 11.3, $`R_1,R_2`$ are odd, and from the hole $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}f_1`$ it follows that $`k`$ is odd. If $`a_1`$ has no neighbour in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ then $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}f_1`$ is an odd hole, and if $`a_1`$ has a neighbour in $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ then $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ violates 12.2. So $`f_k`$ is not the unique neighbour of $`b_0`$ in $`F`$. This proves (4).

Choose $`i`$ with $`1i<k`$ minimum so that $`b_0`$ is adjacent to $`f_i`$, and let $`R_0^{}`$ be the path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_i\text{-}b_0`$. There are no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ and $`BC`$ from the minimality of $`F`$, and from 12.2 there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_i,b_0\}`$ and $`AC`$. Hence $`f_1\text{-}R_0^{}\text{-}b_0`$ is a banister, and in particular the three paths $`R_0^{},R_1,R_2`$ form a prism, $`K^{}`$ say. Let $`F^{}=\{f_{i+1},\mathrm{},f_k\}`$. Then $`F^{}`$ is connected and disjoint from $`V(K^{})`$, and $`F^{}`$ has attachments in $`R_1a_1`$, and in $`R_0^{}b_0`$, and by (3) it has no attachments in $`R_2`$. By 10.4 applied to $`K^{}`$, it follows that $`F^{}`$ contains a path with one end adjacent to $`a_1,f_1`$, the other end adjacent to $`b_0,b_1`$, and with no more edges between this path and $`V(R_0^{})V(R_1)`$. Since the only vertex of $`F^{}`$ adjacent to $`f_1`$ is $`f_2`$, and that only if $`i=1`$, and the only vertex in $`F^{}`$ adjacent to $`b_1`$ is $`f_k`$, it follows that $`i=1`$, and the only edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`V(R_0^{})V(R_1)`$ are $`f_kb_1,f_kb_0,f_2a_1,f_2f_1`$. But then by (2), $`a_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_0,b_1,f_k\}`$, via $`a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$, $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$, $`a_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$, contrary to 2.4. This proves 12.3.

Now we turn to anticonnected sets of major vertices. We have already defined what it is for a staircase to be maximal in $`G`$. We say a staircase $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ is strongly maximal if it is maximal, and in addition, either $`C\mathrm{}`$, or there is no staircase $`(R^{},S^{})`$ in $`\overline{G}`$ with $`V(S)V(S^{})`$. A 2-breaker in $`G`$ is a pair $`(K,Q)`$ such that

* $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ is a strongly maximal staircase in $`G`$,
* $`QV(G)V(K)`$ is anticonnected,
* some vertex of $`A`$ is $`Q`$-complete, and some vertex of $`B`$ is $`Q`$-complete
* $`a_0,b_0`$ are not $`Q`$-complete, and
* some vertex of $`R_0`$ is $`Q`$-complete.

We observe that if $`q`$ is a central vertex with respect to a strongly maximal staircase $`K`$, then $`(K,\{q\})`$ is a 2-breaker, so it follows from the next result that we no longer have to worry about central vertices.

###### 12.4

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, containing no appearance of $`K_4`$, no even prism, and no 1-breaker. If there is a 2-breaker in $`G`$ then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Choose a 2-breaker $`(K,Q)`$ in $`G`$, with notation as above, such that for fixed $`K`$ the set $`Q`$ is maximal. Let $`a_0\text{-}S\text{-}s`$ and $`b_0\text{-}T\text{-}t`$ be the subpaths of $`R_0`$ such that $`s`$ is the unique $`Q`$-complete vertex of $`S`$, and $`t`$ is the unique $`Q`$-complete vertex of $`T`$.
(1) $`S,T`$ both have odd length, and therefore $`s,t`$ are different.
For choose $`aA`$ and $`bB`$, both $`Q`$-complete; then $`a\text{-}a_0\text{-}S\text{-}s`$ has length $`>1`$, and its ends are $`Q`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, and $`b`$ is also $`Q`$-complete and has no neighbours in the interior of $`a\text{-}a_0\text{-}S\text{-}s`$. By 2.2, this path is even, and so $`S`$ is odd, and similarly $`T`$ is odd. Since $`R_0`$ is odd it follows that $`s,t`$ are different. This proves (1).
(2) Every vertex in $`AB`$ is $`Q`$-complete.
For suppose some vertex in $`A`$ say is not $`Q`$-complete. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ so that $`a_1`$ is $`Q`$-complete and $`a_2`$ is not. Since $`s,t`$ are different it follows that $`t`$ is nonadjacent to both $`a_0,a_2`$; and so by 2.8, $`Q`$ cannot be linked onto the triangle $`\{a_0,a_1,a_2\}`$. Hence there is no $`Q`$-complete vertex in $`R_2`$. Assume $`s,t`$ are nonadjacent; then the subpath of $`R_0`$ between them is odd, and $`a_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior, so by 2.2 it contains another $`Q`$-complete vertex $`u`$ say; and then $`s\text{-}S\text{-}a_0\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}T\text{-}t`$ is an odd path, its ends are $`Q`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, and $`u`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So $`s,t`$ are adjacent. Hence the hole $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_0`$ has length $`6`$, and the only $`Q`$-complete vertices in it are the adjacent vertices $`s,t`$. By 2.10 $`Q`$ contains a hat or a leap; and in either case there is a vertex $`qQ`$ with no neighbours in $`R_2`$. But $`q`$ is adjacent to $`s`$ and $`a_1`$, contrary to 10.4 applied to the prism formed by $`R_0,R_1,R_2`$. This proves (2).
(3) Every major vertex is either in $`Q`$ or complete to $`Q`$.
For let $`v`$ be a major vertex, and suppose $`vQ`$, and $`Q^{}`$ is anticonnected, where $`Q^{}=Q\{v\}`$. From 12.1, $`v`$ is either left- or right-diagonal, or central; and in either case it has neighbours $`a_1A`$ and $`b_1B`$ that are nonadjacent. It follows that $`a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$, and its ends are $`Q^{}`$-complete. From the maximality of $`Q`$, none of its internal vertices are $`Q^{}`$-complete, and so by 2.1, $`Q^{}`$ contains a leap $`q_1,q_2`$ say. So neither of $`q_1,q_2`$ has neighbours in the interior of $`R_0`$; but this is impossible since one of them is in $`Q`$ and is therefore adjacent to $`s`$. This proves (3).
(4) There is no edge $`uv`$ of $`GV(S)`$ such that $`u`$ is a left-star, $`v`$ is a right-star, and $`u,v`$ are not $`Q`$-complete.
For suppose $`uv`$ is such an edge. Since $`u,v`$ have neighbours in $`AB`$, they do not belong to $`R_0^{}`$. Since $`u,v`$ have nonneighbours in $`Q`$ and $`Q`$ is anticonnected, there is an antipath $`u\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}v`$ with $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_kQ`$. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$. Then $`a_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}u\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}v\text{-}a_1`$ is an antihole, so $`k`$ is even. Hence every $`Q`$-complete vertex $`w`$ say is adjacent to one of $`u,v`$, for otherwise $`w\text{-}u\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}v\text{-}w`$ would be an odd antihole. In particular, there are no $`Q`$-complete vertices in $`C`$; and therefore $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd path with both ends $`Q`$-complete and no internal vertex $`Q`$-complete. Since $`a_2`$ is $`Q`$-complete and has no neighbour in the interior of $`R_1`$, it follows from 2.2 that $`R_1`$ has length 1, and similarly $`R_2`$ has length 1. Since this step was arbitrary, and every vertex is in a step, it follows that $`C=\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`u`$ has no neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$. Then all $`Q`$-complete vertices in $`R_0^{}`$ are adjacent to $`v`$. In particular, $`v`$ is adjacent to $`s,t`$ and hence does not belong to $`R_0`$ (because $`v`$ is a right-star); and $`s\text{-}S\text{-}a_0\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd path, its ends are $`(Q\{v\})`$-complete, its internal vertices are not, and the $`(Q\{v\})`$-complete $`t`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So $`u`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$, and similarly so does $`v`$. Now $`b_1\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}a_1`$ is an odd antipath, all its internal vertices have neighbours in the connected set $`R_0^{}`$, and its ends do not. By 2.1 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, there is a leap; that is, there exist adjacent $`a,bR_0^{}`$, both $`Q`$-complete, such that $`b\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}a`$ is an antipath. Define $`A^{}=A\{a\}`$ and $`B^{}=B\{b\}`$; then $`(A^{},\mathrm{},B^{})`$ is a strip ($`S^{}`$ say) in $`\overline{G}`$. For every edge $`a_1b_1`$ of $`G`$ with $`a_1A`$ and $`b_1B`$, the pair $`a\text{-}b_1,a_1\text{-}b`$ is a step of $`S^{}`$ (in $`\overline{G}`$), and every vertex of $`AB`$ is in such an edge, and so $`S^{}`$ is step-connected. Hence $`((A^{},\mathrm{},B^{}),v\text{-}q_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_1\text{-}u)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, contrary to the hypothesis that $`K`$ is strongly maximal. This proves (4).
(5) Every path in $`G`$ from an $`A`$-complete vertex to a vertex with a neighbour in $`BC`$ contains either a vertex in $`Q`$ or a $`Q`$-complete vertex.
For suppose not, and choose a path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ say, with $`k`$ minimum such that $`p_1`$ is $`A`$-complete and $`p_k`$ has a neighbour in $`BC`$, and none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ is in $`Q`$ or $`Q`$-complete. Since $`AB`$ is complete to $`Q`$ it follows that none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ is in $`AB`$. Now $`p_1`$ is not in $`C`$ since no vertex in $`C`$ is $`A`$-complete (because they are all in steps), and if some $`p_iC`$ for $`i>1`$, then $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{i1}`$ is a shorter path with the same properties, contrary to the minimality of $`k`$. So none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ is in $`V(S)`$. (Some may be in $`R_0`$, however.) Since none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ is major by (3), it follows from 12.3 and the minimality of $`k`$ that $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ is a banister. From (4), since none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ is $`Q`$-complete, it follows that $`k>2`$. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step. From the hole $`a_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ it follows that $`k`$ is even; and so $`a_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}b_2`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$; its ends are $`Q`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 2.1, $`Q`$ contains a leap $`a,b`$; so $`a\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}b`$ is a path. But then $`(A\{a\},C,B\{b\})`$ is a step-connected strip $`S^{}`$ say (since for every nonadjacent $`a^{}A`$ and $`b^{}B`$, the two paths $`a\text{-}b^{},a^{}\text{-}b`$ make a step in this strip), and so $`(S^{},p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k)`$ is a staircase, contrary to the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. This proves (5).

Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`Q`$-complete vertices in $`G`$; let $`M`$ be the component of $`G(QX)`$ that contains $`a_0`$, and $`N`$ the union of all the other components. By (5), $`b_0N`$, so $`N`$ is nonempty, and hence $`(MN,QX)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Choose $`bB`$; then $`bX`$, and it has no neighbour in $`M`$ by (5). Hence the skew partition is loose, and so $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, by 4.2. This proves 12.4.

###### 12.5

Let $`G`$ be a Berge graph, containing no appearance of $`K_4`$, no even prism, no 1-breaker and no 2-breaker. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a strongly maximal staircase in $`G`$. Let $`q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k`$ be an antipath such that $`q_2,\mathrm{},q_{k1}`$ are both left- and right-diagonal, and $`q_1`$ is left- and not right-diagonal, and $`q_k`$ is right- and not left-diagonal. Then $`q_1`$ is a left-star and $`q_k`$ is a right-star.

Proof. First, obviously $`k2`$. Let $`Q=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_k\}`$.
(1) If $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$ and $`q_k`$ to $`b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For then both $`a_0,b_0`$ are $`Q`$-complete, and $`q_1`$ has a nonneighbour in $`B`$ (for otherwise it would be right-diagonal), and $`q_k`$ has a nonneighbour in $`A`$. Since $`R_0`$ has odd length $`3`$, it follows that each of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k`$ has a neighbour in $`R_0^{}`$. Since $`(S,R_0^{},Q)`$ is not a 1-breaker, it follows that $`Q`$ contains a left-star, which must be $`q_1`$; and similarly $`q_k`$ is a right-star. Then the theorem holds. This proves (1).
(2) If $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$ and $`q_k`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For in this case, $`q_1`$ has a nonneighbour in $`B`$, say $`b`$. From the antihole $`a_0\text{-}b\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_0`$ we deduce that $`k`$ is odd. Now $`R_0`$ is odd, of length $`3`$, and its ends are complete to $`Qq_k`$, and so is every $`aA`$, and $`a`$ has no neighbour in the interior of $`R_0`$, so by 2.2, there is a $`(Qq_k)`$-complete vertex in the interior of $`R_0`$, say $`t`$. Let $`T`$ be the subpath of $`t`$ to $`b_0`$, and let us choose $`t`$ with $`T`$ of minimum length, that is, so that $`t`$ is the unique $`(Qq_k)`$-complete vertex of $`T`$ . If $`t`$ is nonadjacent to $`q_k`$ then $`t\text{-}b\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}t`$ is an odd antihole (since $`k2`$) , a contradiction. Hence $`t`$ is $`Q`$-complete, and in particular, all of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k`$ have neighbours in the interior of $`R_0`$. By 11.4 it follows that $`Q`$ contains a left-star, which must be $`q_1`$. We may assume that $`q_k`$ is not a right-star, for otherwise the theorem holds. Since $`q_k`$ is right-diagonal, from 12.1 it follows that $`q_k`$ is major and therefore has a neighbour in $`A`$. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ so that $`q_k`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$, and if possible nonadjacent to $`a_2`$. Then $`t\text{-}T\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ is a path, and both its ends are $`Q`$-complete, and none of its internal vertices are $`Q`$-complete (since $`q_1`$ is a left-star). By 3.2 applied to $`t\text{-}T\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ and the antipath $`b_1\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}b_0`$, it follows that $`t\text{-}T\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1`$ has length 4, and so $`R_1`$ has length 1 and $`T`$ has length 2; let its middle vertex be $`u`$ say. Also from 3.2, $`u`$ is $`Qq_1`$-complete, and nonadjacent to $`q_1`$. Suppose that $`q_k`$ is nonadjacent to $`a_2`$. Then there is no $`Q`$-complete vertex in $`R_2`$. If $`t`$ is nonadjacent to $`a_0`$ then $`a_0\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}u\text{-}t`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$; its ends are $`Q`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, so by 2.1, $`Q`$ contains a leap, which is impossible since every vertex in $`Q`$ is adjacent to one of $`b_0,b_2`$. If $`t`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$, then $`a_0\text{-}a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}b_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}a_0`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, and the only $`Q`$-complete vertices in it are $`a_0,t`$, and these are adjacent; so by 2.10 there is a hat or a leap in $`Q`$; and again this is impossible since every vertex in $`Q`$ is adjacent to one of $`b_0,b_2`$. This proves that $`q_ka_2`$ is an edge. From our choice of the step, it follows that $`q_k`$ is $`A`$-complete. But therefore any step satisfies the condition we imposed on the step $`R_1,R_2`$; and therefore every path in every step has length 1, that is $`C=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`S=(A\{t\},\mathrm{},B\{u\})`$ is a step-connected strip in $`\overline{G}`$, and $`(S^{},b_0\text{-}q_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_1)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, contradicting that $`(S,R_0)`$ is strongly maximal. This proves (2).
(3) If $`q_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`a_0`$ and $`q_k`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_0`$ then the theorem holds.
For then $`a_0\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_0`$ is an antihole, so $`k`$ is even. Let $`A_1`$ be the set of vertices in $`A`$ adjacent to $`q_k`$, and $`A_2=AA_1`$; and let $`B_1`$ be the set of vertices in $`B`$ adjacent to $`q_1`$, and $`B_2=BB_1`$. If $`a_1A_1`$ and $`b_2B_2`$, then $`a_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd antihole, and so $`a_1`$ is adjacent to $`b_2`$; and hence $`A_1`$ is complete to $`B_2`$, and similarly $`A_2`$ is complete to $`B_1`$. If $`A_1,B_1`$ are both empty then by 12.1, the theorem holds; so we may assume that $`A_1`$ is nonempty. Choose $`a_1A_1`$. Since $`a_1`$ is in a step, it has a nonneighbour in $`B`$, say $`b_1`$. Since $`a_1`$ is $`B_2`$-complete it follows that $`b_1B_1`$. Then $`a_1,b_1`$ are both $`Q`$-complete, and since $`(K,Q)`$ is not a 2-breaker, no internal vertex of $`R_0`$ is $`Q`$-complete. So $`a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$, and its ends are $`Q`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 2.1, $`Q`$ contains a leap. Since every vertex of $`Q`$ except $`q_1,q_k`$ has $`2`$ neighbours in $`R_0`$, it follows that $`k=2`$ and $`q_1,q_2`$ both have no neighbours in the interior of $`R_0`$. Then $`S^{}=(A\{q_2\},C,B\{q_1\})`$ is a step-connected strip (since $`a_1\text{-}q_1,q_2\text{-}b_1`$ is a step of it), and $`(S^{},R_0)`$ is a staircase, contrary to the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. This proves (3).

From (1),(2),(3), the theorem follows. This proves 12.5.

## 13 The long odd prism

In this section we apply the results of the previous section to prove that a Berge graph containing a long odd prism has a decomposition unless it is a line graph.

Let $`K=((A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a strongly maximal staircase in a Berge graph $`G`$. From 12.1 there are three possible kinds of $`B`$-complete vertices; right-stars, vertices complete to both $`A`$ and $`B`$, and $`B`$-complete vertices adjacent to some but not all of $`A`$. The most difficult step in handling the long odd prism is when there is a vertex of the third kind. In that case, we shall construct a subset of $`B`$-complete vertices, including all these “mixed” vertices and some of the others, such that they and their common neighbours form a cutset of the graph, and thereby give us a skew partition. We define the set recursively as follows: initially let $`X`$ be the set of all $`B`$-complete vertices adjacent to some but not all of $`A`$. Then enlarge $`X`$ by repeatedly applying the following two rules, in any order:

1. if there is a $`AB`$-complete vertex $`v`$ that is not in $`X`$ and not $`X`$-complete, add $`v`$ to $`X`$
2. if there is a banister $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ such that $`a`$ is not $`X`$-complete and $`b`$ is not in $`X`$, add $`b`$ to $`X`$.

The process eventually stops with some set $`X`$. We shall prove that $`X`$ and its common neighbours (say $`Y`$) separate $`A`$ (or at least the part of $`A`$ that is not $`X`$-complete) from $`b_0`$, and this will provide a balanced skew partition. To prove that $`XY`$ separates $`G`$ as described, we have to show that every path from $`A`$ to $`b_0`$ meets $`XY`$, and it turns out that there are only two kinds of paths to worry about; banisters, and 1-vertex paths consisting of a major vertex. Any banister $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ is automatically hit, because of the rule above; if $`aY`$ then $`bX`$. The 1-vertex paths are trickier. Let $`v`$ be a major vertex. If it is $`B`$-complete, then it is in either $`Y`$ or $`X`$ by the rule above, so assume it is not $`B`$-complete. By 12.1, it is left- and not right-diagonal, and now we have to show it belongs to $`Y`$. If only we knew that every vertex in $`X`$ was adjacent to $`a_0`$, then it follows easily that $`vY`$, because of 12.5. So that is what we need to do — to prove that every vertex in $`X`$ is adjacent to $`a_0`$.

Let us start again, more formally. Let $`K=((A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a staircase in a Berge graph $`G`$. We define a right-sequence to be a sequence $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$, with the following properties (which we refer to as the right-sequence axioms):

1. $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$ are distinct and $`B`$-complete
2. for $`1it`$, if $`x_i`$ is $`A`$-complete then there exists $`h`$ with $`1h<i`$ such that $`x_h`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_i`$
3. for $`1it`$, if $`x_i`$ is $`A`$-anticomplete then there is a banister $`r\text{-}R\text{-}x_i`$ such that $`r`$ has a nonneighbour in $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1}\}`$.

Any initial subsequence of a right-sequence is therefore another right-sequence. We say $`x_i`$ is earlier than $`x_j`$ if $`i<j`$. Let $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$. For each $`x_iX`$ that has an earlier nonneighbour, we define its predecessor to be $`x_h`$, where $`h`$ is minimum such that $`1h<i`$ and $`x_h`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_i`$. From the second axiom, every $`x_i`$ either has a nonneighbour in $`A`$ or a predecessor, so we can follow the sequence of predecessors until we get to some vertex that is not $`A`$-complete. For each $`x_i`$ we therefore define the trajectory of $`x_i`$ to be the sequence $`w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ with the following properties:

* $`n1`$, and $`w_1=x_i`$
* $`w_n`$ has a nonneighbour in $`A`$
* for $`1j<n`$, $`w_j`$ is $`A`$-complete, and $`w_{j+1}`$ is the predecessor of $`w_j`$.

Clearly the trajectory is unique, and is an antipath. If $`vV(G)`$ is $`A`$-complete, not in $`X`$ and not $`X`$-complete, we define the trajectory of $`v`$ to be the antipath $`v\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$, where $`w_1`$ is the earliest nonneighbour of $`v`$ in $`X`$, and $`w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ is the trajectory of $`w_1`$.

Let $`a`$ be a left-star. If it is not $`X`$-complete, we define the birth of $`a`$ to be the earliest nonneighbour of $`a`$ in $`X`$. Now let $`b`$ be a right-star. A banister $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ is said to be $`b`$-optimal if $`a`$ is not $`X`$-complete, and there is no banister $`a^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}b`$ such that $`a^{}`$ is not $`X`$-complete and the birth of $`a^{}`$ is earlier than the birth of $`a`$.

###### 13.1

Let $`G`$ be Berge, containing no appearance of $`K_4`$, no even prism, no 1-breaker and no 2-breaker. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a strongly maximal staircase in $`G`$, and let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a right-sequence. Let $`b`$ be a right-star, and let $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ be a $`b`$-optimal banister. Let $`a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ be the trajectory of $`a`$. Then $`n`$ is odd, and either:

* $`b`$ is the unique vertex of $`R`$ which is $`\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$-complete, or
* $`R`$ has length 1, and there exists some even $`m`$ with $`1m<n`$ such that $`a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_m\text{-}b`$ is an antipath.

Proof. We proceed by induction on $`t`$, and assume the result holds for all smaller values of $`t`$. Hence we may assume that $`w_1=x_t`$, for otherwise the result follows by induction. Let $`W`$ = $`\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$; then every vertex in $`B`$ is $`W`$-complete.
(1) $`n`$ is odd.
For choose $`a_2A`$ nonadjacent to $`w_n`$, and $`b_1B`$ nonadjacent to $`a_2`$; then $`b_1\text{-}a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}a_2\text{-}b_1`$ is an antihole, so $`n`$ is odd. This proves (1).
(2) If $`w_n`$ has a neighbour in $`A`$ then the theorem holds.
For choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ such that $`w_n`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$. Then $`a_1`$,$`b_2`$ are $`W`$-complete. Suppose first that there are no $`W`$-complete vertices in $`R`$. Then $`a_1\text{-}a\text{-}R\text{-}b\text{-}b_2`$ is an odd path between $`W`$-complete vertices. If $`R`$ has length 1 then there is an antipath $`Q`$ joining $`a,b`$ with interior in $`W`$, and since it can be completed to an antihole via $`b\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a`$, it has odd length and the theorem holds. So we may assume $`R`$ has length $`>1`$, and hence by 2.1 $`W`$ contains a leap. Since all vertices of $`W`$ except $`w_1`$ are adjacent to $`a`$, the leap is $`w_1,w_2`$; and hence the only edges between $`w_1,w_2`$ and $`R`$ are $`w_1b`$ and $`w_2a`$. Since $`n`$ is odd it follows that $`n>2`$ and so $`w_1,w_2`$ are both $`AB`$-complete. But then $`S^{}=(A\{w_2\},C,B\{w_1\})`$ is a step-connected strip, and $`(S^{},a\text{-}R\text{-}b)`$ is a staircase, contrary to the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. So we may assume there are $`W`$-complete vertices in $`R`$. If $`b`$ is the only one then the theorem holds, so assume there is another. But then $`W`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{a,a_1,a_2\}`$, via a subpath of $`Rb`$, the 1-vertex path $`a_1`$, and a subpath of $`R_2`$. Since $`b_1`$ is $`W`$-complete and nonadjacent to both $`a,a_2`$, this contradicts 2.8. This proves (2).

From (2) we may assume that $`w_n`$ has no neighbour in $`A`$. Let $`w_n=x_s`$ say. From the third axiom, there is a banister $`r^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}w_n`$, such that $`r^{}`$ has a nonneighbour in $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{s1}\}`$, and therefore we may choose it to be $`w_n`$-optimal.
(3) $`R^{}`$ is disjoint from $`R`$, and there are no edges between $`V(R)a`$ and $`V(R^{})w_n`$.
Suppose that $`(Ra)(R^{}w_n)`$ is connected. Then it contains a path between $`r^{}`$ and $`b`$, with interior in the union of the interior of $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$, and therefore this path is a banister. But $`R`$ is $`b`$-optimal, and the birth of $`r^{}`$ is earlier than the birth of $`a`$, a contradiction. So $`Ra`$ is disjoint from $`R^{}w_n`$, and there are no edges between them. Since $`ar^{}`$ (because their births are different), and $`bw_n`$ (because $`R`$ is optimal for $`b`$) it follows that $`R`$ is disjoint from $`R^{}`$. This proves (3).

Let $`v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_m`$ be the trajectory of $`r^{}`$, let $`V=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$, and let $`W^{}=\{a,w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n1}\}`$. Since each of $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ is earlier than $`w_n`$, it follows from the definition of trajectory that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ are all $`W^{}`$-complete. By induction on $`t`$, it follows that either $`w_n`$ is the unique $`V`$-complete vertex in $`R^{}`$, or $`R^{}`$ has length 1 and there is an odd antipath between $`r^{}`$ and $`w_n`$ with interior in $`V`$.
(4) If $`n=1`$ then the theorem holds.
For let $`n=1`$, and choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$. Suppose first that $`a`$ has no neighbour in $`R^{}`$. Now $`a`$ is $`V`$-complete, and either $`w_1`$ is the unique $`V`$-complete vertex in $`R^{}`$, or $`R^{}`$ has length 1 and there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ between $`r^{}`$ and $`w_1`$ with interior in $`V`$. In the first case, $`a\text{-}a_1\text{-}r^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}w_1`$ is an odd path, its ends are $`V`$-complete, its internal vertices are not, and the $`V`$-complete vertex $`b_2`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. In the second case, $`a\text{-}r^{}\text{-}Q\text{-}w_1\text{-}a`$ is an odd antihole. This proves that $`a`$ has a neighbour in $`R^{}`$. Now suppose it has a neighbour different from $`r^{}`$; then $`R^{}`$ has length $`>1`$, and so $`w_1`$ is the unique $`V`$-complete vertex in $`R^{}`$; and there is a path $`P^{}`$ say from $`a`$ to $`w_1`$ with interior in $`R^{}r^{}`$. Since the ends of this path are $`V`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, and the $`V`$-complete vertex $`b_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior, it is even by 2.2. But it can be completed to an odd hole via $`w_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}a`$, a contradiction. This proves that $`r^{}`$ is the unique neighbour of $`a`$ in $`R^{}`$. Since $`a\text{-}r^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}w_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b\text{-}R\text{-}a`$ is not an odd hole, it follows from (3) that $`w_1`$ has neighbours in $`R`$. If $`b`$ is its unique neighbour in $`R`$ then the theorem holds, so we assume not. Then there is a path $`P`$ say from $`w_1`$ to $`a`$ with interior in $`Rb`$. Since $`w_1\text{-}P\text{-}a\text{-}r^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}w_1`$ is a hole it follows that $`P`$ is even; but $`P`$ can be completed via $`a\text{-}a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}w_1`$, a contradiction. This proves (4).

We may therefore assume that $`n3`$ (since it is odd.)
(5) $`C=\mathrm{}`$.
For suppose not, and choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ where $`R_1`$ has length $`>1`$. Since $`R_1`$ is odd, and its ends are $`(Ww_n)`$-complete, and the $`(Ww_n)`$-complete vertex $`b_2`$ has no neighbour in its interior, there is a $`(Ww_n)`$-complete vertex $`v`$ in the interior of $`R_1`$, by 2.2. But then $`v`$ is nonadjacent to both $`a`$ and $`w_n`$, since they are left- and right-stars respectively, and so $`v\text{-}a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}v`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. This proves (5).
(6) If $`b`$ is not $`(Ww_n)`$-complete and no edge of $`R`$ is $`(Ww_n)`$-complete then the theorem holds.
For choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$. Then $`a_1\text{-}a\text{-}R\text{-}b\text{-}b_2`$ is an odd path, its ends are $`(Ww_n)`$-complete, and none of its edges are $`(Ww_n)`$-complete. Suppose first that $`R`$ has length $`3`$. Then by 2.1 there is a leap in $`Ww_n`$; and so there are nonadjacent vertices $`x,yWw_n`$ such that $`x\text{-}a\text{-}R\text{-}b\text{-}y`$ is a path. But then $`((A\{x\},\mathrm{},B\{y\}),a\text{-}R\text{-}b)`$ is a staircase, contrary to the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. So $`R`$ has length 1, and there exists $`i`$ with $`1i<n`$ such that $`a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_i\text{-}b`$ is an odd antipath. But then the theorem holds. This proves (6).
(7) If no vertex in $`R`$ is $`W`$-complete then the theorem holds.
For by (6) we may assume that there is a vertex $`v`$ of $`R`$ which is $`(Ww_n)`$-complete. Hence $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`w_n`$. Since $`n3`$ and is odd, and $`a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}v\text{-}a`$ is not an odd antihole, it follows that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`a`$. Consequently $`v`$ is the unique $`(Ww_n)`$-complete vertex in $`R`$. From (6) we may assume that $`v=b`$, and $`R`$ has length 1. Choose a step $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$. Then $`b_1\text{-}a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}b`$ is an odd antipath, of length $`5`$. All its internal vertices have neighbours in the connected set $`V(R^{}w_n)\{a_2\}`$, and its ends do not. By 2.1 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, there are adjacent vertices $`x,y`$ in $`V(R^{}w_n)\{a_2\}`$, such that $`x\text{-}a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}y`$ is an odd antipath. Since $`x`$ is adjacent to $`w_n`$, it follows that $`x`$ is the neighbour of $`w_n`$ in $`R^{}`$, and therefore either $`y`$ is the second neighbour of $`x`$ in $`R^{}`$, or $`R^{}`$ has length 1 and $`y=a_2`$. Assume first that $`R^{}`$ has length $`>1`$, and so both $`x,y`$ belong to the interior of $`R^{}`$. Hence $`x,y`$ are both anticomplete to $`AB`$, and so $`((B\{x\},\mathrm{},A\{y\}),a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, contradicting that $`(S,R_0)`$ is strongly maximal. Now assume that $`R^{}`$ has length 1. Then $`x=r^{}`$ and $`y=a_2`$, and $`((B\{r^{}\},\mathrm{},A\{b\}),a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, a contradiction as before. This proves (7).

We may therefore assume that some vertex of $`Rb`$ is $`W`$-complete, for otherwise the theorem holds by (7). Let $`a\text{-}P\text{-}p`$ be the subpath of $`Rb`$ such that $`p`$ is the unique $`W`$-complete vertex of $`P`$. Choose $`a_1A`$ and $`b_1B`$, adjacent (this is possible by (5)). Let us apply 3.2 to the path $`p\text{-}P\text{-}a\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_1`$, and the even antipath $`a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}a_1`$. Both ends of the path are complete to the interior of the antipath, so by 3.2 it follows that $`P`$ has length 2, and if $`q`$ denotes its middle vertex then $`q`$ is nonadjacent to $`w_n`$ and adjacent to $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$. But then $`((B\{p\},\mathrm{},A\{q\}),a\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, a contradiction. This completes the proof of 13.1.

###### 13.2

Let $`G`$ be Berge, containing no appearance of $`K_4`$, no even prism, no 1-breaker and no 2-breaker. Let $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ be a strongly maximal staircase in $`G`$, and let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a right-sequence. Then $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$ are all adjacent to $`a_0`$.

Proof. Suppose the theorem is false, and choose $`t`$ is small as possible so that the statement of the theorem does not hold. So $`t1`$, and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{t1}`$ are all adjacent to $`a_0`$, and $`x_t`$ is not.
(1) $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ is not an optimal banister for $`b_0`$.
For suppose it is, and let $`a_0\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ be the trajectory of $`a_0`$. Since $`R_0`$ has length $`>1`$ it follows from 13.1 that $`b_0`$ is the unique $`W`$-complete vertex of $`R_0`$, where $`W=\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$. Suppose first that $`n=1`$. Then $`w_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`a_0`$ and has a nonneighbour in $`A`$, and so by 12.1 it is a right-star. By axiom 3 there is a banister $`r\text{-}R\text{-}w_1`$ such that the birth of $`r`$ is earlier than $`w_1`$. Since $`a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0`$ is optimal for $`b_0`$, it follows as in the proof of 13.1 that $`R`$ is disjoint from $`R_0`$, and there are no edges between $`R_0a_0`$ and $`Rw_1`$. The only edge from $`w_1`$ to $`R_0`$ is $`w_1b_0`$, by 13.1. Choose an $`S`$-rung $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}w_1\text{-}R\text{-}r\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`a_0`$ has neighbours in $`R`$. If it has a neighbour different from $`r`$, then the path from $`a_0`$ to $`w_1`$ with interior in $`Rr`$ can be completed via $`w_1\text{-}b_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}a_0`$ and via $`w_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_0`$, and one of the resulting holes is odd, a contradiction. So the unique neighbour of $`a_0`$ in $`R`$ is $`r`$. But then we can add $`r`$ to $`A`$, $`w_1`$ to $`B`$ and the interior of $`R`$ to $`C`$, contradicting the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. So $`n2`$. Now all of $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$ are left-diagonals, and all of $`w_2,\mathrm{},w_n`$ are right-diagonals. But $`w_1`$ is not a right-diagonal, and $`w_n`$ is not a left-diagonal, and $`w_1`$ is not a right-star, contrary to 12.5. This proves (1).

Now since $`a_0`$ has a nonneighbour in $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$, it follows that there is an optimal banister $`r\text{-}R\text{-}b_0`$ for $`b_0`$. From (1), $`r`$ has a nonneighbour in $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{t1}\}`$. From the minimality of $`t`$ (replacing $`R_0`$ by $`R`$) it follows that $`R`$ has length 1, and so $`rb_0`$ is an edge. Let $`r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ be the trajectory of $`r`$; so $`w_1`$ is earlier than $`x_t`$. Let $`W=\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$; hence $`a_0`$ is $`W`$-complete. By 13.1, $`n`$ is odd.
(2) $`b_0`$ is $`W`$-complete.
For suppose not. Then by 13.1, there exists $`i`$ with $`1i<n`$ so that $`r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_i\text{-}b_0`$ is an odd antipath. Now $`r,w_1,\mathrm{},w_{i1}`$ are all left-diagonals; $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_i`$ are all right-diagonals; $`r`$ is not a right-diagonal (since it is a left-star); and $`w_i`$ is not a left-diagonal (since it is nonadjacent to $`b_0`$) and not a right- or left-star (since it is $`AB`$-complete, because $`i<n`$). This contradicts 12.5, and so proves (2).
(3) $`a_0`$ is adjacent to $`r`$, and $`w_n`$ is a right-star.
Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$ be an $`S`$-rung with $`w_n`$ nonadjacent to $`a_1`$. Since $`a_0\text{-}r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}a_1\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_0`$ is not an odd antihole it follows that $`a_0`$ is adjacent to $`r`$. So each of $`r,w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$ is left-diagonal, each of $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ is right-diagonal, $`r`$ is not right-diagonal, $`w_n`$ is not left-diagonal, and the claim follows from 12.5. This proves (3).
(4) There is no $`(W\{r\})`$-complete vertex in the interior of $`R_0`$.
For suppose there is, $`v`$ say. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$ be an $`S`$-rung. Then $`a_0\text{-}a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_0`$ is an odd path; both its ends are $`(W\{r\})`$-complete; and the $`(W\{r\})`$-complete vertex $`v`$ has no neighbour in its interior, so by 2.2 there is a $`(W\{r\})`$-complete vertex in $`R_1`$. But by (3), $`w_n`$ is a right-star and $`r`$ is a left-star, so they have no common neighbour in $`R_1`$, a contradiction. This proves (4).
(5) $`n=1`$.
For assume $`n>1`$. Now $`R_0`$ is odd, and both its ends are $`(W\{r\})`$-complete. Suppose first that $`R_0`$ has length $`5`$. By 2.1 and (4) there is a leap; that is, there are two nonadjacent vertices $`x,yW\{r\}`$ joined by an odd path $`P`$ whose interior is the interior of $`R_0`$. Choose $`b_1B`$; then $`b_1\text{-}x\text{-}P\text{-}y\text{-}b_1`$ is not an odd hole, and so one of $`x,y`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_1`$. Since $`b_1`$ is $`W`$-complete, we may assume $`y=r`$; and hence $`x=w_1`$ since that is the only vertex in $`W`$ nonadjacent to $`r`$. Choose $`a_1A`$; then since $`a_1\text{-}r\text{-}P\text{-}w_1\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`a_1`$ is not adjacent to $`w_1`$ and so $`n=1`$. Now assume that $`R_0`$ has length 3, and let its internal vertices be $`x,y`$ (in some order). By 2.1 there exists an odd antipath $`Q`$ joining $`x,y`$ with interior in $`W\{r\}`$. If $`rV(Q)`$ then $`b_1\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}y\text{-}b_1`$ is an odd antihole, where $`b_1B`$; and if $`w_nV(Q)`$ then $`a_1\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}y\text{-}a_1`$ is an odd antihole, where $`a_1A`$. Hence we may assume that $`x\text{-}r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}y`$ is an antipath. We claim that $`C=\mathrm{}`$. For suppose there is an $`S`$-rung $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1`$ say of length $`>1`$. Then $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_0\text{-}r\text{-}a_1`$ is a hole of length $`6`$; and $`r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n\text{-}a_1`$ is an even antipath of length $`4`$; and $`a_0`$ is complete to the antipath, and has no other neighbours on the hole; and at least two vertices of the hole are complete to the interior of the antipath, namely $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$. This contradicts 3.3. So $`C=\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`((B\{x\},\mathrm{},A\{y\}),r\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n)`$ is a staircase in $`\overline{G}`$, a contradiction. This proves (5).

From (4), (5) we may apply 2.1 to $`R_0`$ and the anticonnected set $`\{r,w_1\}`$, and since the latter has only two members, 2.1 implies that there is an odd path $`P`$ joining $`r`$ and $`w_1`$ with interior equal to the interior of $`R_0`$. From (3), $`w_1`$ is a right-star, and from axiom 3 there is a banister $`r^{}\text{-}R^{}\text{-}w_1`$ (and we may choose it optimal for $`w_1`$) such that the birth of $`r^{}`$ is earlier than $`w_1`$. Now $`R^{}`$ is disjoint from $`R_0`$, and there are no edges between $`R_0a_0`$ and $`R^{}w_1`$; for otherwise there would be a banister from $`r^{}`$ to $`b_0`$, contradicting that $`r\text{-}b_0`$ is optimal for $`b_0`$. Suppose that $`r`$ has a neighbour in $`R^{}`$; then the path between $`r`$ and $`w_1`$ with interior in $`R^{}`$ can be completed to holes via $`w_1\text{-}b_0\text{-}r`$ and via $`w_1\text{-}P\text{-}r`$, a contradiction since one of these holes is odd. So $`r`$ has no neighbour in $`R^{}`$. Let $`r^{}\text{-}v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_m`$ be the trajectory of $`r^{}`$. Since $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ are earlier than $`w_1`$, and $`w_1`$ is the earliest nonneighbour of $`r`$, it follows that $`r`$ is adjacent to all of $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$. Now by 13.1, either

* $`w_1`$ is the unique $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$-complete vertex in $`R^{}`$; but then $`w_1\text{-}R^{}\text{-}r^{}\text{-}a_1\text{-}r`$ (where $`a_1A`$ is nonadjacent to $`v_m`$) is an odd path; its ends are $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$-complete and its internal vertices are not; and the $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$-complete vertex $`b_1`$ (for any $`b_1B`$ nonadjacent to $`a_1`$) has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2.
* $`R^{}`$ has length 1, and there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ between $`r^{}`$ and $`w_1`$ with interior in $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_m\}`$; but then $`r\text{-}r^{}\text{-}Q\text{-}w_1\text{-}r`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction.

This completes the proof of 13.2.

Now we are ready to apply 13.2 to produce a skew partition. Let us say a 3-breaker in $`G`$ is a pair $`(K,x)`$ such that $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ is a strongly maximal staircase in $`G`$, and $`xV(G)V(K)`$ is $`B`$-complete, and not $`A`$-complete, and not $`A`$-anticomplete.

###### 13.3

Let $`G`$ be Berge, containing no appearance of $`K_4`$, no even prism, no 1-breaker and no 2-breaker. Suppose that there is a 3-breaker in $`G`$; then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Let $`(K,x_1)`$ be a 3-breaker, where $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$. The 1-vertex sequence $`x_1`$ is a right-sequence; so there exists a right-sequence $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$ of maximum length, with $`t1`$. Let $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$, and let $`Y`$ be the set of all $`AX`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)V(S)`$. So $`a_0Y`$ by 13.2.
(1) $`XYB`$ meets the interior of every path in $`G`$ from $`AC`$ to $`b_0`$.
For suppose $`P`$ is a path from $`AC`$ to $`b_0`$ with no internal vertex in $`XYB`$. Note that $`b_0X`$ by 13.2, and so $`b_0XYB`$ (since it is not $`A`$-complete). We may assume $`P`$ is minimal, and therefore no internal vertex of $`P`$ is in $`V(S)`$. Let $`P`$ be from $`pAC`$ to $`b_0`$. By 12.3, $`Pp`$ contains either a major vertex or a banister. Suppose first that it contains a banister $`a\text{-}R\text{-}b`$ say. Hence $`a,bXYB`$. Since $`a`$ is $`A`$-complete it is therefore not $`X`$-complete (because it is not in $`Y`$), and then we can set $`x_{t+1}=b`$, contradicting the maximality of the right-sequence. So $`Pp`$ contains no banister. Now assume it contains a major vertex $`v`$ say. Since $`vXYB`$, it follows that $`v`$ is not $`XA`$-complete. Suppose $`v`$ is $`B`$-complete. Since it is major it has a neighbour in $`A`$. If it is not $`A`$-complete we can set $`x_{t+1}=v`$ and obtain a longer right-sequence, a contradiction; and if $`v`$ is $`A`$-complete then since it is not $`XA`$-complete, it is not $`X`$-complete and so again we can set $`x_{t+1}=v`$ and obtain a longer right-sequence, a contradiction. So $`v`$ is not $`B`$-complete. By 12.1 and since there is no 2-breaker in $`G`$ and therefore no central vertex, $`v`$ is left-diagonal, and not right-diagonal; and since it is not $`XA`$-complete, it is not $`X`$-complete. Let $`v\text{-}w_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}w_n`$ be the trajectory of $`v`$. Then each of $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ is right-diagonal, since they are all $`B\{a_0\}`$-complete. Since $`w_n`$ has a nonneighbour in $`A`$, it is not left-diagonal; and so there is a minimum $`i`$ with $`1in`$ such that $`w_i`$ is not left-diagonal. By 12.5 applied to the sequence $`v,w_1,\mathrm{},w_i`$, we deduce that $`v`$ is a left-star, contradicting that $`v`$ is major. This proves (1).

Now since $`S`$ is step-connected, it follows that $`AC`$ is connected; and therefore belongs to a component $`A_1`$ of $`G(XYB)`$. Let $`A_2`$ be the union of all the other components. So by (1), $`b_0A_2`$ , and $`(A_1A_2,XYB)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$ (since $`YB`$ is complete to $`X`$, and $`X`$ is nonempty). We need to find a balanced skew partition. By 4.2 we may assume this skew partition is not loose; so every $`X`$-complete vertex in $`G`$ either belongs to $`B`$ or is also $`A`$-complete. Every vertex in $`YB`$ has a neighbour in $`AC`$, so $`AC`$ is a kernel for this skew partition, in $`\overline{G}`$. By 4.7 it suffices to show that in $`G`$, any two nonadjacent vertices in $`YB`$ are joined by an even path with interior in $`AC`$, and any two adjacent vertices of $`AC`$ are joined by an even antipath with interior in $`YB`$. Now let $`u,vYB`$ be nonadjacent. If they are both adjacent to $`b_0`$, then any path joining them with interior in $`AC`$ (and there is one) is even, since it can be completed to a hole via $`v\text{-}b_0\text{-}u`$. So we may assume that $`u`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_0`$, and hence $`uB`$, so $`uY`$. If they are both in $`Y`$, then they are joined by an even path $`u\text{-}a_1\text{-}v`$ for any $`a_1A`$. So we may assume that $`vB`$. Since $`u`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_0`$ and to $`v`$, it is neither left- nor right-diagonal, and it is not central since there is no 2-breaker; so from 12.1 it is a left-star. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}v`$ be an $`S`$-rung; then $`u\text{-}a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}v`$ is the desired even path between $`u`$ and $`v`$. Now for antipaths, let $`uv`$ be an edge with $`u,vAC`$. They both therefore have nonneighbours in $`B`$, and since $`B\{a_0\}`$ is anticonnected, they are joined by an antipath $`Q`$ with interior in $`B\{a_0\}`$. It suffices to show that $`Q`$ is even, since $`Q^{}YB`$. If $`a_0Q^{}`$, then $`Q`$ is even since $`b_0\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}b_0`$ is an antihole. So $`a_0`$ is in $`Q^{}`$. But there are no edges between $`a_0`$ and $`B`$, and so $`a_0`$ is nonadjacent to every other vertex in the interior of $`Q`$; and since $`Q`$ is an antipath, it therefore has at most 3 internal vertices, so its length is $`4`$. If it is odd, then it has length 3, that is, there are nonadjacent vertices $`u^{}Y`$ and $`v^{}B`$, joined by an odd path with interior in $`AC`$. But we have already shown that they are joined by an even path, and the result follows from 4.3. This proves 13.3.

Now we can prove 1.3.5, the main result of this section. We restate it (M-joins were defined in section 1.)

###### 13.4

Let $`G`$ be Berge, such that there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ in either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$. Suppose that $`G`$ contains a long odd prism as an induced subgraph. Then either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, or $`G`$ admits an M-join.

Proof. We assume that $`G`$ does not admit a balanced skew partition, and $`G,\overline{G}`$ do not admit 2-joins. Since $`G`$ contains a long odd prism, and therefore $`G,\overline{G}`$ are not even prisms, it follows from 10.6 that $`G,\overline{G}`$ contain no even prism. By 11.5, 12.4 and 13.3, $`G,\overline{G}`$ contain no 1-, 2- or 3-breaker.

Since $`G`$ contains a long odd prism, it contains a staircase; and therefore (possibly by replacing $`G`$ by its complement) there is a strongly maximal staircase $`K=(S=(A,C,B),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ say in $`G`$. Let $`A_0`$ be the set of all left-stars, $`B_0`$ the set of all right-stars, and $`N`$ the set of all vertices that are $`AB`$-complete. By 12.1, every non-major $`A`$-complete vertex is in $`A_0`$, and since there is no 3-breaker, every major $`A`$-complete vertex is in $`N`$, so every $`A`$-complete vertex is in $`A_0N`$; and similarly every $`B`$-complete vertex is in $`B_0N`$. Let $`H=G(V(S)A_0B_0N)`$.
(1) Let $`F`$ be a component of $`H`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(S)A_0B_0`$. Then either $`XV(S)=\mathrm{}`$, or $`XV(S)`$ and $`X`$ meets both $`AC`$ and $`BC`$.
We may assume that $`X`$ meets $`V(S)`$, and therefore from the symmetry we may assume that $`X`$ meets $`AC`$. Since no vertex in $`F`$ is $`A`$\- or $`B`$-complete, and therefore no vertex in $`F`$ is major or a left- or right-star, it follows from 12.3 that $`X`$ is disjoint from $`B_0`$. If $`X`$ meets $`BC`$ then similarly $`X`$ is disjoint from $`A_0`$, and so $`XV(S)`$ and the claim holds. We assume therefore that $`XAA_0`$. Suppose there is a vertex $`v`$ of $`G`$, not in $`AA_0NF`$ but with a neighbour in $`F`$. Then $`vV(H)X`$, and so $`vB_0`$. By 12.3 applied to $`F\{v\}`$, it follows that $`F\{v\}`$ contains a major vertex or a left-star, a contradiction. So there is no such $`v`$. Hence $`(V(G)(AA_0N),AA_0N)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$, since $`F`$ is a component of $`V(G)(AA_0N)`$ and $`b_0`$ is in a different component, and $`A,A_0N`$ are both nonempty and complete to each other. Now by 2.6, $`(BC,A)`$ is balanced, since $`a_0`$ is complete to $`A`$ and anticomplete to $`BC`$; and therefore from 2.7, $`(F,A)`$ is balanced (since $`BC`$ is connected and all vertices in $`A`$ have neighbours in it). Hence from 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, a contradiction. This proves (1).

Let $`M`$ be the union of all components of $`H`$ with no attachment in $`V(S)`$. Then $`M`$ is nonempty, since it contains the interior of $`R_0`$. Let $`D`$ be the union of all the other components of $`H`$. Hence $`V(G)`$ is partitioned into $`A,B,C,D,A_0,B_0,N,M`$, where possibly $`C,D`$ or $`N`$ may be empty.
(2) $`N\mathrm{}`$.
For assume that $`N=\mathrm{}`$. Then the only edges between $`V(S)D`$ and $`A_0B_0M`$ are the edges from $`A`$ to $`A_0`$ and those from $`B`$ to $`B_0`$; and since $`A_0B_0M`$ contains at least 4 vertices (the vertices of $`R_0`$) and both $`A`$ and $`B`$ contain at least two, this is a 2-join in $`G`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) $`CD=\mathrm{}`$.
For assume that $`CD`$ is nonempty. By (1) there are no edges between $`CD`$ and $`A_0B_0M`$. Since $`N`$ is complete to $`AB`$, it follows that $`(CDA_0B_0M,NAB)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. By 4.2, it is not loose, and so there is no $`N^{}`$-complete vertex in $`R_0`$, where $`N^{}`$ is an anticomponent of $`N`$. Let $`a_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}b_2`$ be a step; then $`a_1\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b_2`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$; its ends are $`N^{}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 2.1, there is a leap in $`N^{}`$, and so there exist nonadjacent $`x,y`$ in $`N`$ so that $`x\text{-}a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}y`$ is a path. But then $`((A\{x\},C,B\{y\}),a_0\text{-}R_0\text{-}b_0)`$ is a staircase, contradicting the maximality of $`(S,R_0)`$. This proves (3).

But then the six sets $`A,B,A_0,B_0,M,N`$ form an M-join in $`G`$. This proves 13.4.

This is the only place in the entire paper where we use M-joins. It is natural to ask whether M-joins are really necessary, or whether 1.2 remains true if we omit them. It appears that the second holds; one of us (Chudnovsky) has what seems to be a proof, which if correct will appear in her PhD thesis. But in this paper we accept M-joins.

Let us say a graph $`G`$ is recalcitrant if:

* $`G`$ is Berge
* $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ are not line graphs, and $`G`$ is not a bicograph
* $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ do not admit 2-joins, and
* $`G`$ does not admit an M-join or balanced skew partition.

The remainder of the paper is basically a proof of the following.

###### 13.5

If $`G`$ is recalcitrant then either $`G`$ or $`\overline{G}`$ is bipartite.

Clearly any counterexample to 1.2 is recalcitrant, so 13.5 will imply 1.2.

On the other hand, for some purposes (eliminating M-joins, and a possible recognition algorithm for perfection) it is desirable to keep closer track of which results hold under which hypotheses, instead of just using the blanket “recalcitrant” hypothesis. But at least, for the remainder of the paper we shall only be concerned with Berge graphs $`G`$ such that in both $`G,\overline{G}`$ there is no appearance of $`K_4`$ and no long prism; that is, with the members of the class $`_5`$ introduced in section 1. Certainly every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_5`$, by 10.6 and 9.7.

It turns out that for such graphs, there is a useful strengthening of 2.1 — the second alternative of that theorem can no longer hold.

###### 13.6

Let $`G_5`$, and let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ with odd length. Let $`XV(G)`$ be anticonnected, so that both ends of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete. Then either:

1. some edge of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete, or
2. $`P`$ has length $`3`$ and there is an odd antipath joining the internal vertices of $`P`$ with interior in $`X`$.

Proof. Let $`P`$ be $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. By 2.1, we may assume that $`P`$ has length $`5`$ and $`X`$ contains a leap $`u,v`$ say; so $`u\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{n1}\text{-}v`$ is a path. But then the three paths $`p_1\text{-}v,u\text{-}p_n,p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{n1}`$ form a long prism, contrary to $`G_5`$. This proves 13.6.

There is an analogous strengthening of 2.9, as follows.

###### 13.7

Let $`G_5`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ with even length $`>0`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, so that $`p_1`$ is the unique $`X`$-complete vertex of $`P`$ and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex of $`P`$. Then $`P`$ has length $`2`$ and there is an antipath $`Q`$ between $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$, and an antipath $`R`$ between $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and exactly one of $`Q`$,$`R`$ has odd length.

Proof. Let us apply 2.9. We may therefore assume that $`P`$ has length $`4`$ and there are nonadjacent $`x_1,x_2X`$ so that $`x_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_2`$ is a path $`P^{}`$ say, of odd length $`5`$. But the ends of $`P^{}`$ are $`Y\{p_1\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 13.6. This proves 13.7.

## 14 The double diamond

We are finished with prisms — we cannot dispose of the prism where all three paths have length 1 (yet), and we have disposed of all others. Now we turn to a different type of subgraph, the double diamond.

Let $`G`$ be Berge. If $`A,B`$ are disjoint subsets of $`V(G)`$, we say a square in $`(A,B)`$ is a hole $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ of length 4, where $`a_1,a_2A`$ and $`b_1,b_2B`$. The pair $`(A,B)`$ is square-connected if:

* $`|A|,|B|2`$,
* for every partition $`(X,Y)`$ of $`A`$ with $`X,Y`$ nonempty, there is a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ with $`a_1X`$ and $`a_2Y`$
* for every partition $`(X,Y)`$ of $`B`$ with $`X,Y`$ nonempty, there is a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ with $`b_1X`$ and $`b_2Y`$.

It follows that if $`(A,B)`$ is square-connected then every vertex of $`AB`$ is in a square. An antisquare is a square in $`\overline{G}`$; that is, an antihole $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ with $`a_1,a_2A`$ and $`b_1,b_2B`$; and $`(A,B)`$ is antisquare-connected if it is square-connected in $`\overline{G}`$. For strips in which every rung has length 1 (and from now on, those are the only kind of strips we shall need), being square-connected is the same as being step-connected. We have renamed the concepts because we wanted to improve our notation for a step.

We say a quadruple $`(A,B,C,D)`$ of subsets of $`V(G)`$ is a cube in $`G`$ if it satisfies the following conditions:

* $`A,B,C,D`$ are pairwise disjoint and nonempty
* $`A`$ is complete to $`C`$, and $`B`$ to $`D`$, and $`A`$ is anticomplete to $`D`$, and $`B`$ to $`C`$
* $`(A,B)`$ is square-connected, and $`(C,D)`$ is antisquare-connected.

If $`G`$ contains a double diamond, then it contains a cube in which $`A,B,C,D`$ all have two elements, and that turns out to be the right approach to the double diamond — grow the cube until it is maximal, and analyze how the remainder of $`G`$ attaches to it. That is our goal in this section. A cube $`(A,B,C,D)`$ is maximal if there is no cube $`(A^{},B^{},C^{},D^{})`$ with $`AA^{},BB^{},CC^{},DD^{}`$ such that $`(A,B,C,D)(A^{},B^{},C^{},D^{})`$. The subgraph $`G|(ABCD)`$ is called the graph formed by the cube. Note that if $`(A,B,C,D)`$ is a cube in $`G`$, then $`(C,D,B,A)`$ is a cube in $`\overline{G}`$. (This is very convenient, because it reduces our work by half - we are going to have the usual minor vertices and major vertices, and whatever we can prove about minor vertices is also true in the complement for major ones.)

###### 14.1

Let $`G_5`$. Let $`(A,B,C,D)`$ be a maximal cube in $`G`$, forming $`K`$, let $`vV(G)V(K)`$, and let $`X`$ be the set of neighbours of $`v`$ in $`V(K)`$. Then either

* $`X`$ is a subset of one of $`AB,CD,AC,BD`$, and $`X(AC)`$ is complete to $`X(BD)`$, or
* $`X`$ includes one of $`AB,CD,AD,BC`$, and $`(AD)X`$ is anticomplete to $`(BC)X`$.

Proof. Note that under taking complements the two outcomes become exchanged. If $`XAB`$, and there exists $`aXA`$ and $`bXB`$, nonadjacent, then choose $`cC`$ and $`dD`$, adjacent, and $`v\text{-}a\text{-}c\text{-}d\text{-}b\text{-}v`$ is an odd hole. So if $`XAB`$ then the theorem holds. Similarly it holds if $`XCD`$; and trivially it holds if $`X`$ is a subset of one of $`AC,BD`$. So we may assume that $`X`$ meets both $`A`$ and $`D`$. From the same argument in $`\overline{G}`$, we may also assume that none of $`AB,CD,AD,BC`$ is a subset of $`X`$, that is, either $`X`$ includes neither of $`A`$,$`C`$ or it includes neither of $`B`$,$`D`$. These two cases are exchanged when we pass to the complement; so we may assume by taking complements that $`X`$ includes neither of $`B,D`$. Let $`A_1=AX`$, and $`A_2=AA_1`$; and define $`B_1,B_2`$ etc. similarly. We have shown so far that $`A_1,B_2,D_1,D_2`$ are nonempty. Choose an antisquare $`c_2\text{-}d_1\text{-}d_2\text{-}c_1\text{-}c_2`$ such that $`d_1D_1`$ and $`d_2D_2`$, and choose $`b_2B_2`$. Since $`v\text{-}c_2\text{-}d_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}d_1\text{-}v`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`c_2C_2`$. Hence $`A_1`$ is complete to $`B_1`$; for if $`a_1A_1`$ and $`b_1B_1`$ are nonadjacent then $`v\text{-}a_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}d_2\text{-}b_1\text{-}v`$ is an odd hole. If $`A_1=A`$, then since $`(A,B)`$ is square-connected and $`A_1`$ is complete to $`B_1`$ it follows that $`B_1`$ is empty; but then we can add $`v`$ to $`C`$ (because $`v\text{-}d_2\text{-}d_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}v`$ becomes a new antisquare), contrary to the maximality of the cube. So $`A_2`$ is nonempty. Hence there is a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ with $`a_1A_1`$ and $`a_2A_2`$. Since $`a_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_2`$ and complete to $`B_1`$, it follows that $`b_2B_2`$; but then $`v\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}d_1\text{-}v`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves 14.1.

Say a vertex $`vV(G)V(K)`$ is minor if the first case of 14.1 applies to it, and major if the second case applies. Then every such vertex is either minor or major and not both; and by taking complements, the minor and major vertices are exchanged.

###### 14.2

Let $`G_5`$. Let $`(A,B,C,D)`$ be a maximal cube in $`G`$, forming $`K`$, let $`FV(G)V(K)`$ be a connected set of minor vertices, and let $`X`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`V(K)`$. Then $`X`$ is a subset of one of $`AB,CD,AC,BD`$. Moreover, $`X(AC)`$ is complete to $`X(BD)`$.

Proof. Suppose the first assertion is false, and choose $`F`$ minimal with this property. We may assume that $`X`$ meets both of $`A,D`$. Since all vertices in $`F`$ are minor, it follows that $`F`$ is a path $`f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ of length $`1`$. We may assume $`f_1`$ is the unique vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`A`$, and $`f_k`$ is the unique vertex of $`F`$ with a neighbour in $`D`$. Let $`X_1`$,$`X_2`$ be the sets of attachments in $`V(K)`$ of $`Ff_k`$, $`Ff_1`$ respectively. From the minimality of $`F`$ it follows that $`X_1`$ is a subset of one of $`AB,AC`$, and $`X_2`$ is a subset of one of $`BD,CD`$.
(1) Not both $`X_1AB`$ and $`X_2BD`$ .
For suppose that both these hold. If $`k`$ is even, choose $`aA`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$, and $`dD`$ is adjacent to $`f_k`$, and $`cC`$ is adjacent to $`d`$; then $`a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d\text{-}c\text{-}a`$ is an odd hole , a contradiction. So $`k`$ is odd. Suppose first that $`f_1`$ is complete to $`A`$. Since it is minor, it has no neighbours in $`B`$ (for no vertex in $`B`$ is $`A`$-complete). If there are no edges between $`B`$ and $`F`$, let $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ be a square, and let $`dD`$ be adjacent to $`f_k`$; then $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d`$ form a long prism, a contradiction. So there are edges between $`B`$ and $`F`$. Choose $`i`$ with $`1ik`$ minimum so that $`f_i`$ has a neighbour in $`B`$. If $`f_i`$ is not complete to $`B`$, choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ so that $`f_i`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$ and not to $`b_2`$; then $`b_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{f_1,a_1,a_2\}`$, via $`b_1\text{-}f_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_1`$, $`b_1\text{-}a_1`$, $`b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2`$, contrary to 2.4. So $`f_i`$ is complete to $`B`$. Let $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ be a square; then since $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_i`$ do not form a long prism (because $`G_5`$), it follows that $`i=2`$. But $`k>2`$ since $`k`$ is odd; so we can add $`f_1`$ to $`C`$ and $`f_2`$ to $`D`$, contrary to the maximality of the cube. This proves (1) if $`f_1`$ is $`A`$-complete. Now assume $`f_1`$ is not $`A`$-complete, and choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ so that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole (where $`dD`$ is adjacent to $`f_k`$), it follows that $`b_2`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$. Choose $`i`$ minimum so that $`b_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_i`$. Let $`cC`$ and $`dD`$ be any adjacent pair of vertices. Then the three paths $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,c\text{-}d`$ form a prism, and since the set of attachments of $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_i\}`$ in this prism is not local, and does not include $`a_2`$, it has an attachment in the third path $`c\text{-}d`$, by 10.4; and hence $`i=k`$, and $`f_k`$ is $`D`$-complete. Again, let $`cC`$ and $`dD`$ be adjacent. Then the prism formed by $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$,$`a_2\text{-}b_2`$,$`c\text{-}d`$ is long, contrary to $`G_5`$. This proves (1).
(2) Not both $`X_1AC`$ and $`X_2CD`$ .
For assume these both hold. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$, and choose $`dD`$ adjacent to $`f_k`$. If $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$ then $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d`$ form a long odd prism, a contradiction. If $`a_2`$ is not adjacent to $`f_1`$ then $`a_1`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{b_1,b_2,d\}`$, via $`a_1\text{-}b_1`$,$`a_1\text{-}a_2\text{-}b_2`$, $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) Not both $`X_1AB`$ and $`X_2CD`$ .
For assume these both hold. Then $`X_1X_2=\mathrm{}`$, and so $`f_1`$ is the unique neighbour in $`F`$ of the vertices in $`X_1`$, and $`f_k`$ is the unique neighbour of those in $`X_2`$. From (1), $`X_2BD`$ and so $`X_2C\mathrm{}`$; and similarly from (2), $`X_1B\mathrm{}`$. Also we are given that $`X_1A,X_2D\mathrm{}`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}c_1\text{-}a_1`$ is a hole (where $`a_1AX_1`$ and $`c_1CX_2`$) it follows that $`k`$ is even. Since $`f_1`$ is minor, $`X_1A`$ is complete to $`X_1B`$, and so $`A,B`$ are not subsets of $`X_1`$; and similarly $`CX_2`$ is complete to $`DX_2`$ and therefore $`C,D`$ are not subsets of $`X_2`$. So all the eight sets $`AX_1,AX_1`$ etc. are nonempty. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$; and choose an antisquare $`c_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}d_2\text{-}c_2\text{-}c_1`$ such that $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`d_1`$ and not to $`d_2`$. It follows that $`f_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`b_2`$, since $`X_1A`$ is complete to $`X_1B`$, and $`f_k`$ is not adjacent to $`c_1`$ since $`X_2C`$ is complete to $`X_2D`$. But then $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}d_2\text{-}c_1\text{-}a_1`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves (3).
(4) Not both $`X_1AC`$ and $`X_2BD`$ .
For assume both these hold. Then again, the only edges between $`V(K)`$ and $`F`$ are between $`X_1`$ and $`f_1`$ and between $`X_2`$ and $`f_k`$. By (1) and (2), again all four of the sets $`AX_1,BX_2,CX_1,DX_2`$ are nonempty. There are two cases, depending on the parity of $`k`$. First assume $`k`$ is odd. Then $`AX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`BX_2`$ (for if $`ab`$ were an edge there, then $`a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b\text{-}a`$ would be an odd hole), and so $`AX_1,BX_2`$ are nonempty; and similarly $`CX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`DX_2`$, and therefore $`CX_1,DX_2`$ are nonempty. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$, and choose an antisquare $`c_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}d_2\text{-}c_2\text{-}c_1`$ such that $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`d_1`$ and not to $`d_2`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`b_2X_2`$, and therefore $`a_1X_1`$ (since $`AX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`BX_2`$), and $`c_2X_1`$ similarly. But then the three paths $`a_2\text{-}b_2,c_2\text{-}d_1,a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ form a long prism, contrary to $`G_5`$. Now assume $`k`$ is even. Then $`AX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`BX_2`$ (for if $`aAX_1`$ is adjacent to $`bBX_2`$ then $`a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}d\text{-}b\text{-}a`$ is an odd hole, where $`dX_2D`$) . Similarly $`AX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`BX_2`$, $`CX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`DX_2`$, and $`CX_1`$ is anticomplete to $`DX_2`$. Choose $`aAX_1`$ and a neighbour $`b`$ of $`a`$ in $`B`$; then $`bX_2`$. Similarly choose $`cCX_1`$ and $`dDX_2`$, adjacent. Then the three paths $`a\text{-}b,c\text{-}d,f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ form a prism, and so $`k=2`$. If $`f_1`$ is $`C`$-complete then since $`CX_1=C`$ is anticomplete to $`DX_2`$, it follows that $`f_2`$ is $`D`$-complete; and then we can add $`f_1`$ to $`A`$ and $`f_2`$ to $`B`$, contrary to the maximality of the cube. So $`CX_1`$. Choose an antisquare $`c_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}d_2\text{-}c_2\text{-}c_1`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`c_1`$ and not to $`c_2`$. It follows that $`f_2`$ is adjacent to $`d_2`$ and not to $`d_1`$. If $`f_1`$ is $`A`$-complete, then as before $`f_2`$ is $`B`$-complete, and we can add $`f_1`$ to $`C`$ and $`f_2`$ to $`D`$ (because $`f_1\text{-}d_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}c_2\text{-}f_1`$ is a new antisquare), a contradiction. So $`f_1`$ has a nonneighbour in $`A`$, and we can choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ such that $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$. It follows that $`f_2`$ is adjacent to $`b_1`$ and not to $`b_2`$. But then $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}d_2\text{-}b_2\text{-}d_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}a_1`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves (4).

From (1)-(4), the first assertion of the theorem follows. Now let us prove the second assertion. We may assume $`X`$ meets both $`AC`$ and $`BD`$, and so from what we just proved, either $`XCD`$ or $`XAB`$. Suppose first that $`XCD`$. If possible, choose $`cCX`$ and $`dDX`$, nonadjacent, and choose a path $`P`$ joining them with interior in $`F`$. Let $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}a_1`$ be a square; then the three paths $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,c\text{-}P\text{-}d`$ form a long prism, a contradiction. So there are no such $`c,d`$, and the theorem holds.

Now assume that $`XAB`$. Assume $`XA`$ is not complete to $`XB`$, and choose a path $`a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b`$, where $`aA,bB`$ are nonadjacent and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_kF`$, with $`k`$ minimum. Since $`f_1`$ is minor, its neighbours in $`A`$ are complete to its neighbours in $`B`$, and so $`k2`$. Let $`A^{}`$ be the set of all vertices $`aA`$ such that $`a`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$ and there is a nonneighbour $`b`$ of $`a`$ in $`B`$ adjacent to $`f_k`$. By assumption $`A^{}\mathrm{}`$. Define $`B^{}`$ similarly in $`B`$. If $`A^{}=A`$ and $`B^{}=B`$, then $`f_1`$ is $`A`$-complete, and so there are no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k1}\}`$ and $`B`$, from the minimality of $`k`$; and similarly $`f_k`$ is $`B`$-complete and there are no edges between $`\{f_2,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`A`$. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$; then $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ form a prism, so $`k=2`$, and we can add $`f_1`$ to $`C`$ and $`f_2`$ to $`D`$, contrary to the maximality of the cube. So we may assume that $`A^{}A`$. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ so that $`a_1A^{}`$ and $`a_2A^{}`$. Choose $`cC`$ and $`dD`$, adjacent. Choose $`bB^{}`$ nonadjacent to $`a_1`$ (this exists from the definition of $`A^{}`$). From the minimality of $`k`$, $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b`$ is a path. From the hole $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b\text{-}d\text{-}c\text{-}a_1`$ we deduce that $`k`$ is even. Since $`b`$ is not adjacent to $`a_1`$, $`b`$ is different from $`b_1`$. Suppose that $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`b_2`$. Then the set of attachments of $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ with respect to the prism formed by $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,c\text{-}d`$ is not local, and yet it has no attachment in $`c\text{-}d`$, so by 10.4, both $`a_2`$ and $`b_1`$ are attachments. Since $`a_2,b_1`$ are nonadjacent, it follows from the minimality of $`k`$ and 10.1 that $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$ and $`b_1`$ to $`f_k`$, contradicting that $`a_2A^{}`$.

So $`f_k`$ is not adjacent to $`b_2`$. Then $`b`$ is different from $`b_2`$. Since $`c`$ has no neighbour in the connected set $`F^{}=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k,b\}`$, and the set of attachments of $`F^{}`$ is not local with respect to the prism formed by $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,c\text{-}d`$, it follows from 10.4 that $`F^{}`$ has an attachment in $`a_2\text{-}b_2`$. If $`a_2`$ is not an attachment then $`b_2`$ is, and from the minimality of $`k`$ it follows that $`b`$ is the unique neighbour of $`b_2`$ in $`F^{}`$; but then $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b`$, $`a_2\text{-}b_2`$,$`c\text{-}d`$ form a long prism, a contradiction. So $`a_2`$ is an attachment of $`F^{}`$. Since $`a_2\text{-}a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b\text{-}a_2`$ is not an odd hole, $`a_2`$ has a neighbour in $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$. If $`b_1`$ also has a neighbour in $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$, then (since $`a_2,b_1`$ are nonadjacent) from the minimality of $`k`$ and 10.1 it follows that $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$ and $`b_1`$ to $`f_k`$, and hence $`a_2A^{}`$, a contradiction. So $`b_1`$ has no neighbour in $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$. Since $`a_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}b\text{-}b_1\text{-}a_1`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`b_1`$ is not adjacent to $`b`$, and therefore has no neighbours in $`F^{}`$. Let $`P`$ be the path between $`a_2`$ and $`b`$ with interior in $`F^{}`$. From 10.4, $`a_1`$ has a neighbour in $`Pa_2`$. But the only neighbour of $`a_1`$ in $`F^{}`$ is $`f_1`$, so $`f_1`$ is in $`Pa_2`$, and therefore $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`a_2`$, and there are no other edges between $`a_2`$ and $`F^{}`$. Since $`a_2A^{}`$ it follows that $`a_2`$ is adjacent to $`b`$. But then the set of neighbours of $`b`$ in the prism formed by $`a_1\text{-}b_1,a_2\text{-}b_2,c\text{-}d`$ is not local, and yet none are in the path $`a_1\text{-}b_1`$, contrary to 10.4. This proves 14.2.

The main result of this section is 1.3.6, which we restate, the following:

###### 14.3

Let $`G_5`$. If $`G`$ contains a double diamond as an induced subgraph, then either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ admits a 2-join, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. In particular, every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_6`$.

Proof. We may assume that $`G,\overline{G}`$ do not admit 2-joins, and $`G`$ does not admit a balanced skew partition. Suppose for a contradiction that $`G`$ contains a double diamond; then it contains a cube, and so there is a maximal cube $`(A,B,C,D)`$ in $`G`$, forming $`K`$. Let $`F`$ be the set of all minor vertices in $`V(G)V(K)`$, and $`Y`$ the set of all major ones.
(1) Every anticomponent $`Y_1`$ of $`Y`$ is complete to one of $`AB,CD,AD,BC`$, and every edge from $`AD`$ to $`BC`$ has a $`Y_1`$-complete end.
This is immediate from 14.2 by taking complements.
(2) There is no anticomponent of $`Y`$ that is complete to $`AD`$ or $`BC`$.
For suppose such a component exists, say $`Y_1`$. From the symmetry we may assume it is complete to $`AD`$. Define $`L`$ to be the union of $`C`$ and all components of $`F`$ with an attachment in $`C`$, and $`M`$ to be the union of $`B`$ and all other components of $`F`$; and define $`X`$ to be the set of all $`Y_1`$-complete vertices of $`G`$ not in $`LM`$. So all major vertices belong to $`Y_1X`$, and the four sets $`L,M,XAD,Y_1`$ are nonempty and partition $`V(G)`$; and since $`Y_1`$ is complete to $`XAD`$, and there are no edges between $`L,M`$ by 14.2, it follows that $`(LM,XADY_1)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. By 4.2 it is not loose. We claim it is balanced. For by 2.6, $`(L,D)`$ is balanced, since any vertex in $`B`$ is $`D`$-complete and $`L`$-anticomplete. Let $`u,vL`$ be adjacent, and suppose they are joined by an odd antipath $`Q_1`$ with interior in $`Y_1`$. If they both have nonneighbours in $`D`$, then since $`D`$ is anticonnected they are also joined by an antipath $`Q_2`$ with interior in $`D`$, which is also odd since its union with $`Q_1`$ is an antihole, contradicting that $`(L,D)`$ is balanced. So we may assume that $`u`$ is $`D`$-complete. Hence $`uC`$, and so $`u`$ belongs to some component $`F_1`$ of $`F`$ with an attachment in $`C`$. Since $`u`$ is minor, all its neighbours in $`C`$ are adjacent to all its neighbours in $`D`$, and hence it has no neighbours in $`C`$; so $`vF_1`$. Since $`F_1`$ has an attachment in $`C`$ and in $`D`$ (because $`u`$ has neighbours in $`D`$) it follows that $`F`$ has no attachments in $`A`$, and so $`u,v`$ have no neighbours in $`A`$. But then $`a\text{-}u\text{-}Q_1\text{-}v\text{-}a`$ is an odd antihole (where $`aA`$), a contradiction. Next suppose there exist nonadjacent $`u,vY_1`$, joined by an odd path $`P`$ with interior in $`L`$. By what we just proved about odd antipaths, it follows that $`P`$ has length $`5`$. Now $`AD`$ is anticonnected, and there is no $`AD`$-complete vertex in $`L`$, since every vertex in $`L`$ is minor or belongs to $`C`$. Hence the ends of $`P`$ are $`AD`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. But this contradicts 13.6. By 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) There is no component of $`F`$ such that its set of attachments in $`K`$ is a subset of one of $`AC,BD`$.
This follows from (2) by taking complements.
(4) There do not exist both a component $`F_1`$ of $`F`$ with set of attachments contained in $`AB`$ and an anticomponent $`Y_1`$ of $`Y`$ complete to $`AB`$.
For assume that such $`F_1,Y_1`$ exist. Define $`M=CD(FF_1)`$, and $`X`$ to be the set of all $`Y_1`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)(MF_1)`$. So $`ABX`$, and the four sets $`F_1,M,Y_1,X`$ are all nonempty and form a partition of $`V(G)`$. Since $`Y_1`$ is complete to $`X`$ and there are no edges between $`F_1`$ and $`M`$, it follows that $`(F_1M,Y_1X)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Suppose that $`u,vF_1`$ are adjacent and are joined by an odd antipath $`Q`$ with interior in $`Y_1`$. Since $`a\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}a`$ is not an odd antihole (where $`aA`$), it follows that one of $`u,v`$ has a neighbour in $`A`$, say $`u`$. Since by (3) there is an attachment of $`F_1`$ in $`B`$, and no vertex in $`B`$ is $`A`$-complete, it follows from 14.2 that not every vertex in $`A`$ is an attachment of $`F_1`$, and so $`u`$ is not $`A`$-complete. Choose a square $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$ such that $`u`$ is adjacent to $`a_1`$ and not to $`a_2`$. Since $`a_2\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}a_2`$ is not an antihole, and $`u`$ is not adjacent to $`a_2`$, it follows that $`va_2`$ is an edge. Since $`u`$ is minor, it is not adjacent to $`b_2`$, by14.1; and since $`b_2\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}b_2`$ is not an antihole, $`v`$ is adjacent to $`b_2`$. Similarly $`b_1`$ is adjacent to $`u`$ and not $`v`$. But then $`G|\{a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2,u,v,c,d\}`$ (where $`cC`$ and $`dD`$ are adjacent) is $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$, a contradiction. So there is no such edge $`uv`$. By taking complements it follows that there do not exist nonadjacent vertices in $`Y_1`$ joined by an odd path with interior in $`F_1`$. Hence by 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, a contradiction. This proves (4).
(5) There do not exist both a component $`F_1`$ of $`F`$ with set of attachments contained in $`CD`$ and an anticomponent $`Y_1`$ of $`Y`$ complete to $`CD`$.
For assume such $`F_1,Y_1`$ exist. Define $`M=AB(FF_1)`$, and $`X`$ to be the set of all $`Y_1`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)(MF_1)`$. So $`CDX`$, and the four sets $`F_1,M,Y_1,X`$ are all nonempty and form a partition of $`V(G)`$. Since $`Y_1`$ is complete to $`X`$ and there are no edges between $`F_1`$ and $`M`$, it follows that $`(F_1M,Y_1X)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. Suppose that $`u,vF_1`$ are adjacent and joined by an odd antipath $`Q`$ with interior in $`Y_1`$. Choose $`cC`$ and $`dD`$, nonadjacent. Since $`c\text{-}u\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}c`$ is not an odd antihole, $`c`$ is adjacent to one of $`u,v`$, and similarly so is $`d`$. So $`u,v`$ are both attachments of $`F_1`$, contrary to 14.2. Hence there are no such $`u,v`$. It follows by taking complements that there are no two nonadjacent $`u,vY_1`$ joined by an odd path with interior in $`F_1`$; and so by 4.5, $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition, a contradiction. This proves (5).

Now if $`Y=\mathrm{}`$, then by (3) it follows that $`G`$ admits a 2-join, a contradiction. So $`Y`$ is nonempty, and by taking complements, $`F`$ is nonempty. By (4), passing to the complement if necessary, we may assume that there is no anticomponent of $`Y`$ that is complete to $`AB`$. Hence $`Y`$ is complete to $`CD`$, by (1) and (2). Since $`Y`$ is nonempty, it follows from (5) that there is no component $`F_1`$ of $`F`$ with set of attachments contained in $`CD`$; so by (3), all attachments of $`F`$ belong to $`AB`$. Choose an anticomponent $`Y_1`$ of $`Y`$. By (3) and 14.2, $`Y_1`$ is not $`A`$-complete or $`B`$-complete. Let $`X`$ be the set of $`Y_1`$-complete vertices in $`ABCD`$. Let $`L`$ be the union of $`AX`$ and all components of $`F`$ that have an attachment in $`AX`$; and let $`M`$ be the union of $`BX`$ and all other components of $`F`$. By (1) there are no edges between $`AX`$ and $`BX`$; and therefore by 14.2, no component of $`F`$ has attachments in both $`AX`$ and $`BX`$. Hence there is no edge between $`L`$ and $`M`$. Since $`L,M,X(YY_1),Y_1`$ is a partition of $`V(G)`$, and $`Y_1`$ is complete to $`X(YY_1)`$, it follows that $`(LM,X(YY_1)Y_1)`$ is a skew partition of $`G`$. No vertex of $`D`$ has a neighbour in $`L`$, and so it is loose, contrary to 4.2. Hence there is no such graph $`G`$. This proves 14.3.

## 15 Consequences

Disposal of the long prism and double diamond has a number of consequences that we develop in this section. First, we can now prove a form of Chvátal’s skew partition conjecture , that no minimum imperfect graph $`G`$ admits a skew partition, because it is a consequence of 14.3 and the following.

###### 15.1

Let $`G_6`$. If $`G`$ admits a skew partition, then it admits a balanced skew partition.

Proof. Suppose $`G`$ admits a skew partition. Neither of $`G,\overline{G}`$ contains as an induced subgraph either a long prism, or a double diamond, or $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$, so the result follows from 4.10. This proves 15.1.

Consequently we have the following:

###### 15.2

Let $`G_6`$, and assume that $`G`$ admits no balanced skew partition. Let $`X,YV(G)`$ be nonempty, disjoint, and complete to each other.

* If $`XY=V(G)`$, then either $`G`$ is complete, or $`\overline{G}`$ has exactly two components, both with $`2`$ vertices (and hence $`|V(G)|4`$).
* If $`XYV(G)`$, then $`V(G)(XY)`$ is connected, and if in addition $`|X|>1`$, then every vertex in $`X`$ has a neighbour in $`V(G)(XY)`$.

Proof. By 15.1, $`G`$ admits no skew partition. Assume first that $`XY=V(G)`$. Then $`\overline{G}`$ is not connected; let its components be $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_k`$ say. We may assume that $`G`$ is not complete, and therefore we may assume that some $`B_i`$, say $`B_1`$, has cardinality $`>1`$. Choose $`x,yB_1`$, adjacent. Then $`(V(G)\{x,y\},\{x,y\})`$ is not a skew partition, and so $`G\{x,y\}`$ is connected. Hence $`k=2`$ and $`B_1=\{x,y\}`$. Similarly $`B_2`$ has cardinality $`2`$, and so $`|V(G)4`$ and the theorem holds. Now assume that $`G(XY)`$ is nonnull. Suppose that $`V(G)(XY)`$ is not connected; then $`(V(G)(XY),XY)`$ is a skew partition, a contradiction. So $`V(G)(XY)`$ is connected. Now suppose some $`xX`$ has no neighbour in $`V(G)(XY)`$. Hence $`V(G)((X\{x\})Y)`$ is not connected, and since $`G`$ admits no skew partition it follows that $`X=\{x\}`$. This proves 15.2.

Here is another consequence:

###### 15.3

Let $`G_6`$. Let $`C`$ be a cycle in $`G`$ of length $`6`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, and let $`1<h<i`$ and $`i+1<j<n`$. Let $`C`$ be induced except possibly for an edge $`p_hp_j`$. Let $`YV(G)V(C)`$ be anticonnected, such that the only $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ are $`p_n,p_1,p_i,p_{i+1}`$. Suppose there is a path $`F`$ of $`GY`$ from $`p_h`$ to $`p_j`$ (possibly of length 1), such that there are no edges between its interior and $`V(C)\{p_h,p_j\}`$. Then some vertex of $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete.

Proof. Assume no vertex of $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Since the hole

$$p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}F\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1$$

is even, and the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is even (by 2.2), it follows that the path

$$p_i\text{-}p_{i1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}F\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n$$

is odd, and therefore has length 3 by 13.6. So $`F`$ has length 1, and $`i=h+1`$ and $`n=j+1`$. Similarly $`h=2`$ and $`j=i+2`$, and so $`n=6`$. Then $`p_2,p_5`$ are adjacent, so there is an antipath $`Q`$ joining them with interior in $`Y`$. But then in $`\overline{G}`$, the three paths $`p_1\text{-}p_4`$,$`p_5\text{-}p_2`$, $`p_3\text{-}Q\text{-}p_6`$ form a long prism, a contradiction. This proves 15.3.

There is a variant of 3.2, the following.

###### 15.4

Let $`G_6`$, and let $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ be a path in $`G`$. Let $`2sm2`$, and let $`p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s+1}`$ be an antipath, where $`n2`$. Assume that $`p_1,p_m`$ are both adjacent to all of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$. Then $`n`$ is even and $`m=4`$.

Proof. If $`n`$ is even then $`p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s+1}`$ is an odd antipath, and $`p_1,p_m`$ are complete to its interior; and hence $`p_1,p_m`$ are both adjacent to one of $`p_s,p_{s+1}`$. So $`s=2`$ and $`m=s+2`$, and therefore $`m=4`$. Now assume $`n`$ is odd; then $`p_s\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_{s+1}`$ is an even antipath of length $`4`$, contrary to 13.7 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ to this antipath and the sets $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1}\}`$,$`\{p_{s+2},\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. This proves 15.4.

There is a strengthening of 2.3:

###### 15.5

Let $`G_6`$, let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$, and let $`QV(G)V(C)`$ be anticonnected. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`C`$ of length $`>1`$ so that its ends are $`X`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. Then $`P`$ has even length.

Proof. The claim is trivial if $`C`$ has length 4, so we assume it has length $`6`$. Let the vertices of $`C`$ be $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, and let $`P`$ be $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ say, where $`3k<n`$. Assume $`k`$ is even. Then by 13.6 applied to $`P`$ we deduce that $`P`$ has length 3, so $`k=4`$. By 2.2 every $`X`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`p_2,p_3`$, so there are none in the interior of the odd path $`p_4\text{-}p_5\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1`$. By 13.6 this path also has length 3, so $`n=6`$. Let $`Q`$ be the shortest antipath with interior in $`X`$, joining either $`p_2,p_3`$ or $`p_5,p_6`$. From the symmetry we may assume its vertices are $`p_2\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_m\text{-}p_3`$ say. Then $`Q`$ is odd since it can be completed to an antihole via $`p_3\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_4\text{-}p_2`$; and since $`p_5\text{-}p_2\text{-}Q\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_5`$ is therefore not an antihole, it follows that $`p_5`$ (and similarly $`p_6`$) has a nonneighbour in the interior of $`Q`$. From the choice of $`Q`$ it follows that $`p_5,p_6`$ both have exactly one nonneighbour in the interior of $`Q`$; one is nonadjacent to $`q_1`$ and the other to $`q_m`$. Suppose that $`m>2`$. If $`p_5`$ is nonadjacent to $`q_1`$ then the three antipaths $`q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_m,p_5\text{-}p_3,p_2\text{-}p_6`$ for a long prism in $`\overline{G}`$, contrary to $`G_6`$; while if $`p_5`$ is nonadjacent to $`q_m`$ then $`q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_m,p_6\text{-}p_3,p_2\text{-}p_5`$ form a long prism, again a contradiction. So $`m=2`$. But then $`G|\{p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_6,q_1,q_2\}`$ is $`L(K_{3,3}e)`$ if $`p_5`$ is nonadjacent to $`q_1`$, and a double diamond if $`p_5`$ is nonadjacent to $`q_2`$, again contrary to $`G_6`$. This proves 15.5.

There is also a strengthening of 3.3; we no longer need the vertex $`z`$.

###### 15.6

Let $`G_6`$, let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$ of length $`6`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ in order, and let $`Q`$ be an antipath with vertices $`p_1,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n,p_2`$, with length $`4`$ and even. There is at most one vertex in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ complete to either $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$ or $`\{q_2,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and any such vertex is one of $`p_3,p_m`$.

Proof. Suppose first that one of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ belongs to the hole. Since it is adjacent to at least one of $`p_1,p_2`$ (since $`Q`$ is an antipath), we may assume that it is $`p_m`$; and since it is nonadjacent to $`p_2`$, it follows that $`p_m=q_n`$. So $`p_3q_1`$ (since $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`q_n`$), and therefore no more of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ belong to $`C`$. Suppose that there exists $`i`$ with $`3i<m`$ such that $`p_i`$ is complete to either $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$ or $`\{q_2,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$. If $`i<m1`$ then $`p_i`$ is not adjacent to $`p_m=q_n`$, so $`p_i`$ is complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$; but then $`p_i\text{-}p_1\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_i`$ is an odd antihole. So $`i=m1`$. By 15.5 applied to the path $`p_{m1}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_2`$ it follows that $`p_{m1}`$ is not complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}\}`$, and therefore it is complete to $`\{q_2,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ and nonadjacent to $`q_1`$. But then $`p_2\text{-}p_{m1}\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_2`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. So there is no such $`i`$, and therefore the theorem holds in this case.

So we may assume that none of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ belong to $`C`$. Let $`X=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and let $`Y_1,Y_2`$ be the sets of vertices in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ complete to $`Xq_n`$, $`Xq_1`$ respectively.
(1) $`Y_1Y_2\{p_m\}`$, and $`Y_2Y_1\{p_3\}`$.
This is proved as in the proof of 3.3.
(2) If $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$ then $`p_3Y_1Y_2`$, and if $`Y_2\{p_3\}`$ then $`p_mY_1Y_2`$.
For assume $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$, and choose $`i`$ with $`3im1`$ minimum so that $`p_iY_1`$. By (1), $`p_iY_2`$, so we may assume $`i>3`$, for otherwise the claim holds. By 15.5 applied to the anticonnected set $`Xq_n`$, $`i`$ is even. The path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is odd, and between $`Xq_1`$-complete vertices, so by 15.5 it contains another in its interior, say $`p_h`$. From the minimality of $`i`$, $`p_hY_1`$, so by (1) $`h=3`$, and 15.5 applied to the path $`p_3\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ implies that $`i=4`$. Choose $`j`$ with $`4jm`$ maximum so that $`p_jY_2`$. By (1), $`p_j`$ is $`X`$-complete. By 15.4 applied to $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_4`$ we deduce that $`j5`$, and so $`jm`$. By 15.5 applied to the path $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1`$ and anticonnected set $`Xq_1`$, it follows that $`j`$ is odd, and so $`j=5`$. From 15.5 applied to the path $`p_5\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_2`$ and anticonnected set $`Xq_n`$, we deduce that there exists $`k`$ with $`6km`$ such that $`p_kY_1`$. Since it is not in $`Y_2`$, it follows from (1) that $`k=m`$, and so $`p_mY_1Y_2`$. But then $`p_3\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_3`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. This proves (2).

Now not both $`p_3,p_m`$ are in $`Y_1Y_2`$, for otherwise $`Q`$ could be completed to an odd antihole via $`p_2\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_1`$. Hence we may assume $`p_3Y_1Y_2`$, and so from (2), $`Y_1\{p_m\}`$. By (1), $`Y_2\{p_3\}Y_1`$, and so $`Y_1Y_2\{p_3,p_m\}`$. We may therefore assume that $`Y_1Y_2=\{p_3,p_m\}`$, for otherwise the theorem holds. In particular, $`p_3Y_2`$. If also $`p_mY_2`$, then $`p_3\text{-}p_4\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ is an odd path between $`Xq_1`$-complete vertices, and none of its internal vertices are $`Xq_1`$-complete, contrary to 15.5. So $`p_mY_2`$, and so $`p_mY_1`$; but then $`p_3\text{-}q_1\text{-}q_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_3`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. This proves 15.6.

This implies a strengthening of 3.1:

###### 15.7

Let $`G_6`$. Let $`C`$ be a hole of length $`>4`$ and $`D`$ an antihole of length $`>4`$. Then $`|V(C)V(D)|2`$.

Proof. Assume that $`|V(C)V(D)|3`$; then by taking complements if necessary, we may assume that there are three vertices in $`V(C)V(D)`$ such that exactly one pair of them is adjacent. Hence we can number the vertices of $`C`$ as $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ in order, and the vertices of $`D`$ as $`p_1,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n,p_2,p_k`$ for some $`k`$ with $`4km1`$. (Possibly the hole and antihole also share some fourth vertex.) Hence the antipath $`p_1\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_n\text{-}p_2`$ has length $`4`$ and even. The vertex $`p_k`$ is complete to $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$, and different from $`p_3,p_m`$, contrary to 15.6. This proves 15.7.

## 16 Odd wheels

A wheel in a graph $`G`$ is a pair $`(C,Y)`$, satisfying:

* $`C`$ is a hole of length $`6`$
* $`Y`$ is a non-null anticonnected set disjoint from $`C`$
* there are two disjoint edges of $`C`$, both $`Y`$-complete.

We need to study how the remainder of a nonconforming graph can attach onto a wheel. Conforti and Cornuéjols also made such a study - see  and  for several theorems related to the results of this section. We call $`C`$ the rim and $`Y`$ the hub of the wheel. A maximal path in a path or hole $`H`$ whose vertices are all $`Y`$-complete is called a segment or $`Y`$-segment of $`H`$. A wheel $`(C,Y)`$ is odd if some segment has odd length. In this section we prove that there are no odd wheels in a recalcitrant graph. (Gérard Cornuéjols informs us that he and his co-workers proved the same result, independently, but, like us, assuming the truth of 13.4 \- see .)

Let us say that distinct vertices $`u,v`$ of the rim of a wheel $`(C,Y)`$ have the same wheel-parity if there is a path of the rim joining them containing an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges (and hence by 2.3, so does the second path, if $`u,v`$ are nonadjacent); and opposite wheel-parity otherwise.

###### 16.1

Let $`G_6`$, and let $`(C,Y)`$ be a wheel in $`G`$. Let $`vV(G)(V(C)Y)`$, such that $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. Suppose that there exist neighbours of $`v`$ in $`C`$ with opposite wheel-parity. Then in every path of $`C`$ between them there is a $`Y\{v\}`$-complete edge. Moreover, either:

* $`v`$ has only two neighbours in $`C`$, and they are adjacent and both $`Y`$-complete, or
* there is a $`3`$-vertex path $`p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}p_3`$ in $`C`$, so that $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ are all $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, and every other neighbour of $`v`$ in $`C`$ has the same wheel-parity as $`p_1`$, or
* $`(C,Y\{v\})`$ is a wheel.

Proof.
(1) Let $`P`$ be a path in $`C`$ of length $`1`$, such that its ends are adjacent to $`v`$ and have opposite wheel-parity. Then either some internal vertex of $`P`$ is a neighbour of $`v`$, or $`P`$ has length 1.
Let $`C`$ have vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, and let $`P`$ be the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$ say, where $`j<n`$. We assume no internal vertex of $`P`$ is a neighbour of $`v`$, and that $`j3`$. From the hole $`v\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}v`$ it follows that $`j`$ is odd. Since $`p_1,p_j`$ have opposite wheel-parity with respect to $`(C,Y)`$, there are an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$. Choose $`Y^{}Y`$ minimal such that $`Y^{}`$ is anticonnected and there are an odd number of $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in $`P`$. From 2.3 applied to the hole $`v\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}v`$, it contains just one $`Y^{}`$-complete edge and only two $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices. Hence there exists $`i`$ with $`1i<j`$ so that $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$ are the only $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices in $`P`$. Since $`j`$ is odd, it follows that exactly one of $`i1,ji`$ is even; so (by replacing $`P`$ by its reverse if necessary) we may assume that $`i`$ is odd. So $`p_j`$ is different from $`p_{i+1}`$, and hence $`p_j`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete. There are two disjoint $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in $`C`$, so one of them does not use $`p_i`$; and therefore it does not use $`p_1`$ either (for $`p_1`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete unless $`i=1`$). Hence both its ends are in $`\{p_{j+1},\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. Consequently $`nj+2`$, and since $`n`$ is even and $`j`$ is odd it follows that $`nj+3`$. Therefore there is a $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$.

Suppose that $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$. Then there is a path $`Q`$ from $`v`$ to a $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex $`u`$ say, with $`V(Q)\{v,p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$, such that no internal vertex of $`Q`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. The path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_1\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}u`$ has both ends $`Y^{}`$-complete, and no internal vertex $`Y^{}`$-complete, and the $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex $`p_{i+1}`$ has no neighbour in its interior; so this path is even, that is, $`Q`$ is odd. Hence the path $`p_{i+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}u`$ is odd, and so by 13.6 has length 3; and hence $`j=i+2`$ and $`Q`$ has length 1. Also, every $`Y^{}`$-green vertex is adjacent to one of $`p_j,v`$, by 2.2; and so $`p_i`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, and so $`i=1,j=3`$; and $`v`$ is adjacent to every $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`C`$ except $`p_2`$ and possibly $`p_4`$ (for no others are adjacent to $`p_3`$). In particular, there are two nonadjacent $`Y^{}\{v\}`$-complete vertices in $`C`$, and so by 2.3 there are an even number of $`Y^{}\{v\}`$-complete edges in $`C`$. But all $`Y^{}`$-complete edges of $`C`$ are $`Y^{}\{v\}`$-complete except $`p_1p_2`$ and possibly $`p_4p_5`$; and since there are also an even number of $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in $`C`$, it follows that $`p_4,p_5`$ are $`Y^{}`$-complete, and $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_5`$ and not to $`p_4`$. But then the vertices $`v,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5`$ violate 15.3.

This proves that $`v`$ has no neighbour in $`\{p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$. Choose $`k`$ with $`jkn`$ minimum such that $`p_k`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. Since there is a $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$, it follows that $`k<n`$. From 2.3 it follows that the path $`p_{i+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ is even, and so $`k`$ is even. Suppose that $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`p_{j+1}`$. Since $`v\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}v`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`p_n`$, so $`p_1,p_j`$ are its only neighbours in $`C`$. But $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_1\text{-}v\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ is odd, and therefore has length 3 by 13.6; and by 2.2, every $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`C`$ is adjacent to $`v`$ except possibly $`p_{j1},p_{j+1}`$, a contradiction since there is a $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_{j+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$. So $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_{j+1}`$. Since $`v\text{-}p_{j+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1\text{-}v`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`v`$ is also adjacent to $`p_n`$, so it has exactly four neighbours in $`C`$. Choose $`m`$ with $`kmn`$ maximum so that $`p_m`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. It follows that $`mj+2`$. If $`m=n`$ then $`k`$ has no neighbours in the interior of the odd path $`p_{i+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}v\text{-}p_n`$, and the ends of this path are $`Y^{}`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 2.2. So $`m<n`$. Then 2.3 applied to the path $`p_m\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ implies that $`m`$ is odd, and therefore $`m>k`$. Suppose that $`m>k+1`$. Then $`p_m\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}v\text{-}p_{j+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ is an odd path, and $`p_{i+1}`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. So $`m=k+1`$, and there is symmetry between the paths $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$ and $`p_{j+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Both these paths have length $`2`$; suppose they both have length 2. Then $`n=6`$, and the only $`Y^{}\{v\}`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ are $`p_1,p_4`$, contrary to 15.5. So one of the paths has length $`>2`$, and from the symmetry we may assume that $`j4`$. Hence the hole $`H=v\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}v`$ has length $`6`$, and the only $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices in it are $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$. By 2.10, $`Y^{}`$ contains a hat or a leap. But $`p_{k+1}`$ has no neighbour in this hole, so the pair $`(V(H),Y^{})`$ is balanced by 2.6, and hence there is no leap. So there is a hat; that is, there exists $`yY^{}`$ with no neighbours in $`H`$ except $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$. From the minimality of $`Y^{}`$ it follows that $`Y^{}=\{y\}`$. But then $`G|(V(C)\{v,y\})`$ is the line graph of a bipartite subdivision of $`K_4`$, a contradiction. This proves (1).

From (1) the first assertion of the theorem follows. Now we prove the second assertion. Suppose that $`v`$ has at least four neighbours in $`C`$, two with the same wheel-parity, and two others with the opposite wheel-parity. Then there are two disjoint paths as in (1), and therefore from (1) there are two disjoint $`Y\{v\}`$-complete edges in $`C`$, and so $`(C,Y\{v\})`$ is a wheel and the theorem holds. So we may assume that $`C`$ has vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, and $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_1`$, and $`v`$ has no other neighbour in $`C`$ with the same wheel-parity as $`p_1`$. Since $`v`$ has at least one other neighbour, we may assume it has a neighbour in $`V(C)\{p_1,p_n\}`$. Choose $`i>1`$ minimum so that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$; then $`i<n`$, so by (1), $`i=2`$. So $`p_2`$ is $`Y\{v\}`$-complete. If $`v`$ has a third neighbour in $`C`$ then similarly $`p_n`$ is $`Y\{v\}`$-complete and the theorem holds; and if not then again the theorem holds. This proves 16.1.

###### 16.2

Let $`G_6`$, and let $`(C,Y)`$ be a wheel in $`G`$. Let $`FV(G)(V(C)Y)`$ be connected, such that no vertex in $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Let $`XV(C)`$ be the set of attachments of $`F`$ in $`C`$. Suppose that there exist vertices in $`X`$ with opposite wheel-parity, and there are two vertices in $`X`$ that are nonadjacent. Then either:

* there is a vertex $`vF`$ so that $`(C,Y\{v\})`$ is a wheel, or
* there is a vertex $`vF`$ with at least four neighbours in $`C`$, and a $`3`$-vertex path $`p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}p_3`$ in $`C`$, so that $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ are all $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, and every other neighbour of $`v`$ in $`C`$ has the same wheel-parity as $`p_1`$, or
* there is a $`3`$-vertex path $`p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}p_3`$ in $`C`$, all $`Y`$-complete, and a path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_3`$ with interior in $`F`$, such that there no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$.

Proof. We may assume that $`F`$ is minimal. If $`|F|=1`$ then the result follows from 16.1, so we assume $`|F|2`$.
(1) If there do not exist nonadjacent vertices in $`X`$ with different wheel-parity, then the theorem holds.
For there exist vertices in $`X`$ with different wheel-parity, which are therefore adjacent; say $`p_1,p_2`$, where $`C`$ has vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order. So $`p_1,p_2`$ are both $`Y`$-complete, since they have different wheel-parity. There is a third attachment of $`F`$, since there are two that are nonadjacent, say $`p_i`$ where $`3in`$. Since $`p_1,p_2`$ have different wheel-parity, we may assume that $`p_2,p_i`$ have different wheel-parity; and therefore $`p_2,p_i`$ are adjacent, that is, $`i=3`$, and $`p_3`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Suppose $`F`$ has a fourth attachment $`p_j`$ say, where $`4jn`$. From the symmetry we may assume $`jn`$; and so $`p_j`$ is nonadjacent to both $`p_1,p_2`$, and one of these has different wheel-parity from $`p_j`$, a contradiction. So $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ are the only attachments of $`F`$, and then the theorem holds. This proves (1).

From (1) we may assume there are nonadjacent vertices in $`X`$ with opposite wheel-parity, say $`x_1,x_2`$, and therefore $`F`$ is the interior of a path between $`x_1,x_2`$, from the minimality of $`F`$. Let $`C`$ have vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order; then we may assume that there exists $`m`$ with $`3mn1`$ such that $`p_1,p_m`$ have opposite wheel-parity, and there is a path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_m`$ where $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$. Let $`X_1`$ be the set of attachments in $`C`$ of $`Ff_k`$, and $`X_2`$ the set of attachments of $`Ff_1`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, for $`i=1,2`$ either all members of $`X_i`$ have the same wheel-parity, or there are at most two members of $`X_i`$, adjacent if there are two. Since $`k2`$ it follows that $`X_1X_2=X`$.
(2) $`X_1`$ and $`X_k`$ do not both have members of opposite wheel-parity.
For suppose they do; then $`X_1,X_2`$ both consist of exactly two adjacent vertices of opposite wheel-parity, say $`X_1=\{p_1,p_2\}`$ and $`X_2=\{p_m^{},p_{m^{}+1}\}`$. So $`p_1,p_2,p_m^{},p_{m^{}+1}`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, and all distinct since two of them are nonadjacent and of opposite wheel-parity. So the only edges between $`F`$ and $`\{p_1,p_2\}`$ are incident with $`f_1`$, and similarly for $`f_k`$. But then $`G`$ contains a long prism since $`n6`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).
(3) If $`X_1`$ has members of opposite wheel-parity then the theorem holds.
For assume $`X_1`$ has members of opposite wheel-parity. Then we may assume its only members are $`p_1,p_2`$, and they are both $`Y`$-complete. From (1) we may assume that all members of $`X_2`$ have the same wheel-parity as $`p_2`$. In particular, $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in $`Ff_1`$. So the only edges between $`F`$ and $`C`$ are $`f_1p_1`$, edges incident with $`p_2`$, and edges incident with $`f_k`$. Suppose that $`p_2`$ also has no neighbour in $`Ff_1`$, and therefore $`p_2`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$. If $`f_k`$ has a unique neighbour $`x`$ in $`C`$, then $`x`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{p_1,p_2,f_1\}`$; if $`f_k`$ has two nonadjacent neighbours in $`C`$ then $`f_k`$ can be linked onto the same triangle; and if it has exactly two neighbours and they are adjacent, then $`G`$ contains a long prism, in each case a contradiction. So $`p_2`$ has a neighbour in $`Ff_1`$. Let $`R_1`$ be the path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$, and let $`R_2`$ be the path from $`p_2`$ to $`f_k`$ with interior in $`Ff_1`$. Then $`p_1`$ has no neighbours in $`R_2p_2`$. Let $`Q_1`$ be the path from $`f_k`$ to $`p_n`$ with interior in $`Cp_1`$. Now $`p_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}f_k\text{-}Q_1\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1`$ is a hole, so $`R_1`$ and $`Q_1`$ have lengths of opposite parity; and since this hole contains an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges (since all neighbours of $`f_k`$ have wheel-parity opposite from that of $`p_1`$) it follows that it contains exactly one such edge and only two $`Y`$-complete vertices. Since $`p_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete, the other is therefore $`p_n`$. The path $`p_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}f_k\text{-}Q_1\text{-}p_n`$ is between $`Y`$-complete vertices, and no internal vertex is $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior; so it is even by 2.2, that is, $`R_1,R_2`$ have opposite parity. Now there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$; for there are two disjoint $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$, and an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$. Let $`p_s`$ be such a vertex, where $`4sn1`$. We claim that $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$. For if not, then since $`X\{p_n,p_1,p_2\}`$ (because there are nonadjacent vertices in $`X`$ of opposite wheel-parity), it follows that $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`p_3`$. Since $`p_s`$ is not in $`Q_1`$, it follows that $`p_3`$ is not in $`Q_1`$, and so $`f_k`$ has another neighbour, which must be $`p_n`$; but then $`f_k\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_4\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}f_k`$ is an odd hole. So $`f_k`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$; and therefore there is a path $`Q_2`$ from $`f_k`$ to some $`x`$, such that $`x`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`Q_2`$, and $`V(Q_2f_k)\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$. Now the path $`p_2\text{-}R_2\text{-}f_k\text{-}Q_2`$ has both ends $`Y`$-complete, and no internal vertex $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior, so it is even by 2.2. Therefore the path $`p_1\text{-}R_1\text{-}f_k\text{-}Q_2`$ is odd, since $`R_1,R_2`$ have opposite parity; and again its ends are $`Y`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. So it has length 3, by 13.6, and so $`k=2`$; and every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`f_1,f_2`$. Consequently there is no $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`C`$ different from $`p_1`$ with the same wheel-parity as $`p_1`$, a contradiction. This proves (3).

From (3) we may assume that all members of $`X_1`$ have the same wheel-parity, and all members of $`X_2`$ have the opposite wheel-parity. It follows that $`X_1X_2=\mathrm{}`$, and so there are no edges between the interior of $`F`$ and $`C`$. So $`X_1`$ is the set of neighbours of $`f_1`$ in $`C`$, and $`X_2`$ is the set of neighbours of $`f_k`$ in $`C`$.
(4) At least one of $`f_1,f_k`$ has only one neighbour in $`C`$.
For assume they both have at least two. Then there are disjoint paths $`Q,R`$ of $`C`$, and both containing neighbours of both $`f_1,f_k`$. Choose $`Q,R`$ minimal, and let $`Q`$ have ends $`q_1,q_2`$; then from the minimality of $`Q`$, $`q_1`$ is the unique neighbour of one of $`f_1,f_k`$ in $`Q`$, and $`q_2`$ is the unique neighbour of the other. Let $`f_1q_1`$ and $`f_kq_2`$ be edges say. Similarly let $`R`$ have ends $`r_1,r_2`$, where $`f_1r_1,f_kr_2`$ are edges. Since $`q_1,q_2`$ have opposite wheel-parity, it follows that there are an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges in the hole $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}q_2\text{-}Q\text{-}q_1\text{-}f_1`$; so by 2.3 there is exactly one, and just two $`Y`$-complete vertices. If there are no edges between $`Q`$ and $`R`$ this contradicts 15.3. Since $`Q,R`$ are disjoint subpaths of $`C`$, all the edges between them join their ends; so we may assume that $`q_1`$ is adjacent to one of $`r_1,r_2`$. From the hole $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_r\text{-}q_2\text{-}Q\text{-}q_1\text{-}f_1`$ it follows that $`Q`$ has parity $`k1`$, and similarly so does $`R`$. Suppose first that $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`r_1`$. Since $`q_1\text{-}Q\text{-}q_2\text{-}f_r\text{-}r_2\text{-}R\text{-}r_1\text{-}q_1`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`q_2`$ is adjacent to $`r_2`$, and hence $`G`$ contains a long prism, since $`C`$ has length $`6`$, a contradiction. So $`q_1`$ is adjacent to $`r_2`$. Since $`q_1`$ is a neighbour of $`f_1`$ and $`r_2`$ of $`f_k`$, it follows that $`q_1,r_2`$ have opposite wheel-parity, and since they are adjacent, they are both $`Y`$-complete. Let $`q^{}`$ be the neighbour of $`q_1`$ in $`Q`$, let $`Q^{}=Qq_1`$, let $`r^{}`$ be the neighbour of $`r_2`$ in $`R`$, and let $`R^{}=Rr_2`$. Since in the hole $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}q_2\text{-}Q\text{-}q_1\text{-}f_1`$ there are only two $`Y`$-complete vertices and they are adjacent, it follows that the second is $`q^{}`$, and similarly $`r^{}`$ is $`Y`$-complete. If $`q_2`$ is adjacent to $`r_1`$ then not both $`q_2,r_1`$ are $`Y`$-complete since $`C`$ has length $`6`$; and so there are exactly three $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$, contrary to 2.3. It follows that $`q_2`$ is not adjacent to $`r_1`$. From the hole $`q_1\text{-}Q\text{-}q_2\text{-}f_r\text{-}r_2\text{-}q_1`$ it follows that $`Q`$ has odd length, and therefore so does $`R`$ and $`k`$ is even. But then the path $`q^{}\text{-}Q^{}\text{-}q_2\text{-}f_r\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_1\text{-}r_1\text{-}R^{}\text{-}r^{}`$ has odd length, its ends are $`Y`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, and so by 13.6 it has length 3; that is, $`Q`$,$`R`$ have length 1 and $`k=2`$. Hence the path $`r_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}f_2\text{-}q_2`$ is odd, its ends are $`Y`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`f_1,f_2`$. Let $`ab,a^{}b^{}`$ be two $`Y`$-complete edges of $`C`$, disjoint and so that there are no edges from $`\{a,b\}`$ to $`\{a^{},b^{}\}`$. Then each of $`a,b,a^{},b^{}`$ is adjacent to one of $`f_1,f_2`$, and since all neighbours of $`f_1`$ in $`C`$ have opposite wheel-parity from all neighbours of $`f_2`$ in $`C`$, we may assume that $`a,a^{}`$ are adjacent to $`f_1`$ and $`b,b^{}`$ to $`f_2`$. But this contradicts 15.3. This proves (4).

From (4) we may assume that $`X_1`$ has only one member, say $`p_1`$. Choose $`i,j`$ with $`2i,jn`$, such that $`p_i,p_j`$ are adjacent to $`f_k`$, with $`i`$ minimum and $`j`$ maximum. From the hole $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_i\text{-}p_{i1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_1`$ ($`=H_1`$ say) we deduce that $`i,k`$ have the same parity, and from the hole $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_i\text{-}p_{i+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_1`$ (= $`H_2`$ say) that $`j,k`$ have the same parity. (So either $`p_i=p_j`$ or $`p_i,p_j`$ are nonadjacent.) Since $`p_1,p_i`$ have different wheel-parity, and so do $`p_1,p_j`$, there is an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges in each of $`H_1,H_2`$; and therefore there is exactly one $`Y`$-complete edge and exactly two $`Y`$-complete vertices in each of the holes, by 2.3. Suppose that $`i=j`$. Then there are only two $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$, and therefore they are disjoint, and $`p_1,p_i`$ are not $`Y`$-complete (since $`H_1,H_2`$ both have only two $`Y`$-complete vertices), contrary to 15.3. So $`j>i`$, and hence $`ji+2`$. If $`p_1`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, then the $`Y`$-complete edge in $`H_1`$ is disjoint from the path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$, and so is the one in $`H_2`$; but this contradicts 15.3. So $`p_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Since $`H_1`$ contains only two $`Y`$-complete vertices and they are adjacent, the other is $`p_2`$, and similarly $`p_n`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
(5) $`f_k`$ has no neighbour in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_{j2}\}`$.
For assume it does. We claim there is also a $`Y`$-complete vertex in this set; for otherwise the only $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ are $`p_n,p_1,p_2`$ and possibly $`p_{j1}`$, which is impossible since there are two disjoint $`Y`$-complete edges and an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$. Hence there is a path $`P`$ say from $`f_k`$ to some $`x`$ so that $`x`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$ and $`V(Pf_k)\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_{j2}\}`$. The path $`p_n\text{-}p_{n1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}f_k\text{-}P\text{-}x`$ is even, since its ends are $`Y`$-complete, no internal vertex is $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior. The path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}P\text{-}x`$ is therefore odd (since $`k,j`$ have opposite parity), and also its ends are $`Y`$-complete and no internal vertex is $`Y`$-complete; so it has length 3 by 13.6, and hence $`k=2`$ and every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`f_1,f_2`$, by 2.2. So there is no $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`Cp_1`$ with the same wheel-parity as $`p_1`$, a contradiction. This proves (5).

Since $`f_k`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$, and $`i<j`$ and $`ji`$ is even, it follows from (5) that $`i=2`$, and similarly $`f_k`$ has no neighbours in $`\{p_{i+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$ and $`j=n`$. So $`f_k`$ has no neighbours in $`\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_{j2}\}\{p_{i+2},\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}=\{p_3,\mathrm{},p_{n1}\}`$, and therefore $`p_2,p_n`$ are its only neighbours, contradicting that there are nonadjacent vertices in $`X`$ of opposite wheel-parity. This proves 16.2.

The main result of this section is 1.3.7, which we restate, the following.

###### 16.3

Let $`G_6`$. If there is an odd wheel in $`G`$ then $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition. In particular, every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_7`$.

Proof. Suppose $`(C,Y)`$ is an odd wheel with $`Y`$ maximal, and subject to that, such that the number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$ is minimum. (We refer to these conditions as the “optimality” of $`(C,Y)`$.)
(1) There is no vertex $`vV(G)(V(C)Y)`$ such that $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete and has nonadjacent neighbours in $`C`$ of opposite wheel-parity.
Suppose there is such a vertex $`v`$. Suppose first that there is an odd $`Y\{v\}`$-segment in $`C`$. From the maximality of $`Y`$, $`(C,Y\{v\})`$ is therefore not a wheel, and so there is a unique $`Y\{v\}`$-complete edge in $`C`$. By 2.10, either $`v`$ has only two neighbours in $`C`$, or some vertex of $`Y`$ has only three, in either case a contradiction. So there is no odd $`Y\{v\}`$-segment in $`C`$. Define a “line” to be a maximal subpath of $`C`$ with no internal vertex adjacent to $`v`$. It follows that every edge of $`C`$ is in a unique line. Let $`C`$ have vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, and let $`S`$ be an odd $`Y`$-segment.

Since there are no odd $`Y\{v\}`$-segments, it follows that an even number of edges of $`S`$ are $`Y\{v\}`$-complete. Hence an odd number are not, and therefore there is a line $`L`$ containing an odd number of edges of $`S`$ that are not $`Y\{v\}`$-complete. In particular it contains at least one edge that is $`Y`$-complete and not $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, so $`L`$ has length $`>1`$. Let the ends of $`L`$ be $`p,q`$. By 16.1, $`p`$ and $`q`$ have the same wheel-parity with respect to $`(C,Y)`$, and so $`L`$ contains an odd number of edges of some other $`Y`$-segment $`S^{}S`$. In particular, there are two disjoint $`Y`$-complete edges in the hole $`v\text{-}p\text{-}L\text{-}q\text{-}v`$ ( = $`H`$ say); so $`H`$ has length $`6`$ (because $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete) and so $`(H,Y)`$ is a wheel. Moreover it is an odd wheel, for it contains an odd number of edges of $`S`$, and those edges form either one or two $`Y`$-segments in $`H`$, and one of these segments is odd. Since there is a $`Y\{v\}`$-complete edge in $`C`$ (by 16.1, since $`v`$ has neighbours in $`C`$ of opposite wheel-parity) which therefore does not belong to $`L`$, this contradicts the optimality of $`(C,Y)`$. This proves (1).

Since $`(C,Y)`$ is an odd wheel, $`C`$ has at least two segments, and therefore there are vertices $`u,v`$ in $`C`$ with different wheel-parity and neither of them $`Y`$-complete. Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`V(G)`$. Then $`|X|>1`$, since there at least four in $`C`$; so by 15.2, we may assume that $`V(G)(XY)`$ is nonempty and connected ( = $`Z`$ say), and every vertex in $`X`$ has a neighbour in it, for otherwise $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition and the theorem holds. In particular $`u,vZ`$, so there is a minimal connected subset $`F`$ of $`Z`$ such that there are two vertices of $`CX`$ (say $`p,q`$) of opposite wheel-parity, both with neighbours in $`F`$. Since $`p,q`$ have opposite wheel-parity and are not $`Y`$-complete, they are not adjacent. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`F`$ is a path, and no vertex of $`F`$ is in $`C`$. By 16.2 and (1), there is a 3-vertex path $`p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}p_3`$ in $`C`$, all $`Y`$-complete, and a path $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_3`$ with interior in $`F`$, such that there no edges between $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. But then $`Cp_2`$ can be completed to a hole $`C^{}`$ say, via $`p_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_3`$i; and $`C^{}`$ has length $`6`$. For every odd segment $`S`$ of $`(C,Y)`$, either it contained both or neither of the edges $`p_1p_2,p_2p_3`$; and so in either case an odd number of edges of $`S`$ belong to $`C^{}`$. Since $`(C,Y)`$ has an odd segment and there are an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$, it has at least two odd segments. It follows that there are two disjoint $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C^{}`$, and so $`(C^{},Y)`$ is a wheel. Since an odd number of edges of the odd segment $`S`$ belong to $`C^{}`$, it follows that $`(C^{},Y)`$ is an odd wheel, contrary to the optimality of $`(C,Y)`$. This proves 16.3.

## 17 Another extension of the Roussel-Rubio lemma

Let $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ be a triangle in $`G`$. A reflection of this triangle is another triangle $`\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}`$ of $`G`$, disjoint from the first, so that the only edges between it and the first triangle are $`a_1b_1,a_2b_2,a_3b_3`$. Hence these six vertices induce a prism. A subset $`F`$ of $`V(G)`$ is said to catch the triangle $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ if it is connected and disjoint from that triangle and $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$ all have neighbours in $`F`$. We begin with the following extremely useful little fact.

###### 17.1

Let $`A`$ be a triangle in a graph $`G_7`$, and let $`FV(G)A`$ catch $`A`$. Then either $`F`$ contains a reflection of $`A`$, or some vertex of $`F`$ has $`2`$ neighbours in $`A`$.

Proof. Suppose not, and choose $`F`$ minimal such that it catches $`A`$. Let $`A=\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}`$ say, and for $`i=1,2,3`$, let $`B_i`$ be the set of neighbours of $`a_i`$ in $`F`$. Thus the three sets $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$ are pairwise disjoint and nonempty.
(1) There is no path in $`F`$ meeting all of $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$.
For assume there is, and choose it minimal. So then we may assume there is a path $`P`$ from $`b_1B_1`$ to $`b_2B_2`$, such that some vertex of $`P`$ is in $`B_3`$, and for $`i=1,2`$, $`b_i`$ is the only vertex of $`P`$ in $`B_i`$. Since $`B_3`$ is disjoint from $`B_1B_2`$, every vertex of $`B_3`$ in $`P`$ is an internal vertex of $`P`$; and so $`P`$ has length $`2`$. But then $`(C,\{b_3\})`$ is an odd wheel, where $`C`$ is the hole $`a_1\text{-}b_1\text{-}P\text{-}b_2\text{-}a_2\text{-}a_1`$, contrary to $`G_7`$. This proves (1).

Choose $`b_1F`$ so that $`Fb_1`$ is connected; then from the minimality of $`F`$, $`Fx`$ does not catch $`A`$, and so we may assume that $`B_1=\{b_1\}`$. Since $`F`$ is connected and $`|F|2`$, there is a second vertex $`b_2b_1`$ in $`F`$ so that $`Fb_2`$ is connected, and so similarly we may assume $`B_2=\{b_2\}`$. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`F`$ between $`b_1,b_2`$. By (1) no vertex of $`P`$ is in $`B_3`$, so $`F`$ contains a connected subset $`F^{}`$ including $`V(P)`$ which contains exactly one vertex of $`B_3`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`|B_3|=1`$; let $`B_3=\{b_3\}`$ say. Let $`Q`$ be a minimal path in $`F`$ such that $`b_3V(Q)`$ and some vertex of $`P`$ has a neighbour in $`Q`$. From the minimality of $`Q`$ it follows that $`Q`$ is vertex-disjoint from $`P`$, and $`Q`$ has ends $`b_3,x`$ say, where $`x`$ is the unique vertex of $`Q`$ with neighbours in $`P`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`x`$ either has one neighbour in $`P`$, or just two neighbours and they are adjacent; for if it has two nonadjacent neighbours, any vertex of $`P`$ between them could be deleted from $`F`$, contrary to the minimality of $`F`$. If $`x`$ has just one neighbours $`y`$ say in $`P`$, then $`y`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`A`$, contrary to 2.4; so it has two adjacent. Since $`G`$ does not contain a long prism it follows that $`Q`$ has length 0 and $`P`$ has length 1, and so $`F`$ contains a reflection of $`A`$, as required. This proves 17.1.

We did not use the full strength of $`G_7`$ in proving 17.1; we just used that there were no odd wheels with hubs of cardinality 1. This suggest that there should be some generalization of 17.1 whose proof does use the full strength of the hypothesis that there are no odd wheels, and that is true, but not easy - it will be a consequence of the main result of this section.

Before we start on that, let us give a strengthening of 2.10 for graphs in $`_7`$.

###### 17.2

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`F,YV(G)`$ be disjoint, such that $`F`$ is connected and $`Y`$ is anticonnected. Let $`a_0,b_0V(G)(FY)`$ and $`a,bF`$ such that $`a\text{-}a_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b`$ is a $`3`$-edge path in $`G`$. Suppose that:

* $`a_0,b_0`$ are both $`Y`$-complete, and $`a,b`$ are not $`Y`$-complete,
* the only neighbours of $`a_0,b_0`$ in $`F`$ are $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively,
* $`Fa`$ and $`Fb`$ are both connected.

Then either:

1. there is a vertex in $`Y`$ with no neighbour in $`F`$, or
2. there are two nonadjacent vertices $`y_1,y_2Y`$, such that $`a`$ is the only neighbour of $`y_1`$ in $`F`$, and $`b`$ is the only neighbour of $`y_2`$ in $`F`$.

Proof. We may assume that every vertex in $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$, for otherwise statement 1 of the theorem holds.
(1) There exist nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2`$ in $`Y`$, such that $`y_1`$ is adjacent to $`a`$ and not $`b`$, and $`y_2`$ is adjacent to $`b`$ and not $`a`$.
For choose a path $`P`$ between $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then the hole $`a_0\text{-}a\text{-}P_0\text{-}b\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_0`$ ($`=C`$, say) has length $`6`$. If there are any $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`P`$, then they belong to the interior of $`P`$ since $`a,b`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, and there is an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$, by 2.3; but then $`(C,Y)`$ is an odd wheel (the path $`a_0\text{-}b_0`$ is an odd $`Y`$-segment), a contradiction. So there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`P`$. By 2.10 applied to $`C`$, $`Y`$ contains either a hat or a leap. Suppose first it contains a hat, that is, there is a vertex $`yY`$ with no neighbour in $`P`$. By the assumption above, $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$. Consequently $`F`$ catches the triangle $`\{a_0,b_0,y\}`$. But $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`a`$ or $`b`$ since it has no neighbour in $`P`$, and $`a`$ is the only vertex in $`F`$ adjacent to $`a_0`$, and the same for $`b,b_0`$; and $`a,b`$ are nonadjacent, so $`F`$ contains no reflection of the triangle. This contradicts 17.1. Hence there is no such $`y`$, and so there is a leap. This proves (1).
(2) There is no path in $`F`$ between $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`y_1`$ or $`y_2`$ has a neighbour in its interior.
For suppose there is such a path, $`P^{}`$ say. Then the set $`\{y_1,y_2\}`$ contains neither a leap not a hat for the hole $`a_0\text{-}a\text{-}P^{}\text{-}b\text{-}b_0\text{-}a_0`$ ( = $`C`$ say), and so by 2.10 there is a vertex in $`P`$ adjacent to both $`y_1,y_2`$. By 2.3 there is an even number of $`\{y_1,y_2\}`$-complete edges in this hole, and since $`a,b`$ are not $`\{y_1,y_2\}`$-complete, $`(C,\{y_1,y_2\})`$ is an odd wheel, a contradiction. This proves (2).

Now if neither of $`y_1,y_2`$ has any more neighbours in $`F`$ then statement 2 of the theorem holds; so we assume at least one of them has another neighbour in $`F`$. Since $`Fa`$, $`Fb`$ are both connected, there is a connected subset $`F^{}`$ of $`F\{a,b\}`$, so that both $`a`$ and $`b`$ have neighbours in $`F^{}`$, and at least one of $`y_1,y_2`$ has a neighbour in $`F^{}`$. Choose $`F^{}`$ minimal with these properties. At least one of $`y_1,y_2`$ has a neighbour (say $`x`$) in $`F^{}`$. We claim that $`F^{}x`$ is connected. For if not, let $`L`$ be a component of it, and $`M`$ the union of the other components. From the minimality of $`F`$, not both $`a,b`$ have neighbours in $`L\{x\}`$, and not both have neighbours in $`M\{x\}`$; so we may assume all neighbours of $`a`$ in $`F^{}`$ are in $`L`$, and all neighbours of $`b`$ are in $`M`$. But then there is a path from $`a`$ to $`b`$ with interior in $`F`$ and with $`x`$ in its interior, contrary to (2). This proves that $`F^{}x`$ is connected. There is a path from $`a`$ to $`b`$ with interior in $`F^{}`$, and $`x`$ is not in it, by (2), and it has length $`>1`$ since $`a,b`$ are nonadjacent. So $`a`$,$`b`$ both have neighbours in $`F^{}x`$. From the minimality of $`F^{}`$, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ both have no neighbours in $`F^{}x`$. We claim that $`x`$ is adjacent to both $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$. For it is adjacent to at least one, say $`y_1`$; let $`Q`$ be a path from $`x`$ to $`b`$ with interior in $`F^{}`$. Then $`y_1\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}b`$ is a path, since $`y_1`$ has no more neighbours in $`F^{}`$. Since $`b_0\text{-}y_1\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}b\text{-}b_0`$ is a hole it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. Therefore $`a_0\text{-}y_1\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}b\text{-}y_2\text{-}a_0`$ is not a hole, and so $`y_2`$ has neighbours in $`Q`$. Since it has no neighbours in $`F^{}x`$, this proves our claim that $`x`$ is adjacent to both $`y_1,y_2`$.

With $`Q`$ as before, and therefore odd, it follows that $`y_2\text{-}x\text{-}Q\text{-}b\text{-}y_2`$ is not a hole, and therefore $`Q`$ has length 1, that is, $`x`$ is adjacent to $`b`$. Similarly $`x`$ is adjacent to $`a`$; but then $`x\text{-}a\text{-}a_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b\text{-}x`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves 17.2.

The following is a variant of 17.2, not so symmetrical, but more useful.

###### 17.3

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`F,YV(G)`$ be disjoint, such that $`F`$ is connected and $`Y`$ is anticonnected. Let $`a_0,b_0V(G)(FY)`$ and $`a,bF`$ such that $`a\text{-}a_0\text{-}b_0\text{-}b`$ is a $`3`$-edge path in $`G`$. Suppose that:

* $`a_0,b_0`$ are both $`Y`$-complete, and $`a,b`$ are not $`Y`$-complete,
* the only neighbours of $`a_0,b_0`$ in $`F`$ are $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively,
* $`Fa`$ is connected.

Then there is a vertex $`yY`$ with no neighbour in $`Fa`$.

Proof. If $`Fb`$ is connected, the result follows from 17.2. So assume it is not, and let $`F_1^{}`$ be the component of $`Fb`$ that contains $`a`$, and $`F_2^{}`$ the union of all the other components. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`F_i=F_i^{}\{b\}`$. Then $`F_1a`$, $`F_1b`$ are both connected, so by 17.2 either there exists $`yY`$ with no neighbour in $`F_1`$, or there exist nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2Y`$ with no neighbours in $`F_1`$ except $`a,b`$ respectively. Suppose the first. If $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`F_2`$ then $`b`$ can be linked onto the triangle $`\{y,a_0,b_0\}`$, a contradiction to 2.4; and if not then $`y`$ satsifies the theorem. Now suppose the second. If $`y_1`$ has neighbours in $`F_2`$ then $`(F\{a\})\{y_2\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{a,a_0,y_1\}`$; the only neighbours of $`a,a_0,y_1`$ belong to the disjoint sets $`F_1^{},\{y_2\},F2^{}`$; and there is no reflection since there are no edges between $`y_1`$ and $`F_1^{}`$, contrary to 17.1. So $`y_1`$ has no neighbours in $`F_2`$. This proves 17.3.

The next result is just a technical lemma for use in proving the main result of this section, which is 17.5.

###### 17.4

Let $`G_7`$ and let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ with length $`>1`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order. Let $`X,YV(G)V(P)`$ be anticonnected sets, so that $`XY`$ is anticonnected, $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$. (Note that $`X,Y`$ need not be disjoint.) Let $`zV(G)(XYV(P))`$, complete to $`XY`$ and with no neighbours in $`P`$. Assume that $`p_n`$ is not $`X`$-complete. Let $`p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_k\text{-}y`$ be an antipath with interior in $`X`$ from $`p_n`$ to some $`yY`$. Then $`p_{n1}`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_1`$.

Proof. Let $`F=\{p_{n1},x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}Y`$. Since $`p_{n1}`$ is not $`Y`$-complete it follows that $`F`$ is anticonnected, and both $`Fp_{n1}`$, $`Fx_1`$ are anticonnected. The only nonneighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_{n1}`$, and the only nonneighbour of $`p_n`$ in $`F`$ is $`x_1`$; and we may assume that $`p_{n1}`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$. Now $`p_{n1}\text{-}z\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ is a path in $`\overline{G}`$, and $`F`$ is connected in $`\overline{G}`$, and $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n2}\}`$ is anticonnected in $`\overline{G}`$. Also, $`z`$ and $`p_n`$ are $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n2}\}`$-complete in $`\overline{G}`$, and $`p_{n1},x_1`$ are not. We may therefore apply 17.2 in $`\overline{G}`$, and deduce that there is a vertex in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n2}\}`$ which is complete (in $`G`$) to $`Fp_{n1}`$. But then this vertex is $`Y`$-complete, a contradiction. This proves 17.4.

We gave in 2.9 an extension of the Roussel-Rubio lemma to two anticonnected sets instead of one (we haven’t had much use of that theorem yet, but its time is coming.) In that extension the two sets had to be complete to each other. Now we prove a similar result where the two sets are not complete to each other. Incidentally, unlike 2.9, what we are going to prove here is not true for general Berge graphs — we need the hypothesis that $`G_7`$.

###### 17.5

Let $`G_7`$ and let $`P`$ be an odd path in $`G`$ with length $`>1`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order. Let $`X,YV(G)V(P)`$ be anticonnected sets, so that $`XY`$ is anticonnected, $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$. (Note that $`X,Y`$ need not be disjoint.) Let $`zV(G)(XYV(P))`$, complete to $`XY`$ and with no neighbours in $`P`$. Then an odd number of edges of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete.

Proof. If possible choose a counterexample $`P,X,Y`$ such that

1. $`P`$ is minimal
2. subject to condition 1, $`XY`$ is minimal, and
3. subject to conditions 1 and 2, $`|X|+|Y|`$ is minimum.

We refer to this property as the “optimality” of $`P,X,Y`$.
(1) No vertex of $`Pp_1`$ is $`X`$-complete.
If $`p_n`$ is $`X`$-complete, then since $`P`$ has odd length $`>1`$, and the $`X`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in $`P`$, it follows from 2.2 and 2.3 that there are an odd number of $`X`$-complete edges in $`P`$, and the theorem holds, a contradiction. So $`p_n`$ is not $`X`$-complete. By 17.4, $`p_{n1}`$ is not $`X`$-complete. Since $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, we can choose $`i`$ with $`1in`$ maximum such that $`p_i`$ is $`X`$-complete. So $`in2`$. Since $`z`$ has no neighbour in the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$, if $`i`$ is even then there is an odd number of $`X`$-complete edges in this path and hence in $`P`$, by 2.2 and 2.3. So we may assume that $`i`$ is odd. Hence the theorem is also false for $`X,Y`$ and the path $`p_i,\mathrm{},p_n`$. From the optimality of $`P,X,Y`$ it follows that $`i=1`$. This proves (1).
(2) Suppose that $`x_1,x_2X`$ are distinct and such that $`Xx_i`$ is anticonnected for $`i=1,2`$. Then $`XY=\mathrm{}`$, and one of $`x_1,x_2`$ is the unique vertex of $`X`$ with a nonneighbour in $`Y`$.
For if $`(Xx_i)Y`$ is not anticonnected for some $`i`$, then $`Y`$ is disjoint from $`Xx_i`$ (since both these sets are anticonnected), and $`Y`$ is complete to $`Xx_i`$; and therefore $`x_iY`$ (since $`x_i`$ has a nonneighbour in $`Xx_i`$), so $`XY=\mathrm{}`$. But then the statement of (2) holds. So we may assume that $`(Xx_i)Y`$ is anticonnected for $`i=1,2`$. From the optimality of $`P,X,Y`$ it follows that the theorem holds for $`Xx_i,Y,P`$; and so, since $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$, it follows that there are an odd number of $`Xx_i`$-complete edges in $`P`$, for $`i=1,2`$. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`W_i`$ be the set of $`Xx_i`$-complete vertices in $`P`$. So $`W_1W_2=\{p_1\}`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath in $`X`$ between $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. We claim that $`Q`$ is odd. For since $`W_1W_2=\{p_1\}`$, there are nonadjacent vertices $`p_i,p_j`$ of $`P`$, such that $`p_iW_1W_2`$ and $`p_jW_2W_1`$; and since $`p_i\text{-}x_1\text{-}Q\text{-}x_2\text{-}p_j\text{-}p_i`$ is an antihole it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. Let us say a line is a minimal subpath of $`Pp_1`$ meeting both $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$. So every line has length $`1`$, and has one end in $`W_1`$ and the other in $`W_2`$, and has no more vertices in either $`W_1`$ or $`W_2`$. If some line $`L`$ has odd length $`>1`$, then $`(L,Xx_1,Xx_2)`$ is another counterexample to the theorem, contrary to the optimality of $`P,X,Y`$; and if some line has length 1, say $`p_i\text{-}p_{i+1}`$ where $`p_iW_1`$, then $`z\text{-}p_i\text{-}x_1\text{-}Q\text{-}x_2\text{-}p_{i+1}\text{-}z`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. Hence every line is even. Choose $`i`$ minimum with $`2in`$ such that $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_i\}`$ includes a line. (This is possible since both $`W_1,W_2`$ meet $`Pp_1`$.) Since all lines have length $`2`$ it follows that $`i4`$. From the minimality of $`i`$, $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_{i1}\}`$ does not include a line, and so for some $`k\{1,2\}`$, the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ has both ends $`Yx_k`$-complete and no internal vertex $`Xx_k`$-complete. But this path has length $`2`$, and $`z`$ has no neighbour in it, so by 2.2 it is even, that is, $`i`$ is odd. Choose $`j`$ with $`j2`$ maximum so that $`\{p_j,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ includes a line. Since every line has length $`2`$ it follows that $`2jn2`$. From the maximality of $`j`$ it follows that for some $`k\{1,2\}`$, $`W_k\{p_j,\mathrm{},p_n\}=\{p_j\}`$. If the path $`p_j,\mathrm{},p_n`$ has odd length, then $`p_j,\mathrm{},p_n,Xx_k,Y`$ is a counterexample to the theorem, contrary to the optimality of $`P,X,Y`$. So $`nj`$ is even, and hence $`j`$ is even. Now $`i`$ is odd, so if $`ij`$ then $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is an odd line, a contradiction. Hence $`i<j`$, and $`ji`$ is odd. Now the edges $`p_{i1}p_i,p_jp_{j+1}`$ are in lines. Consequently we may choose $`r,s`$ with $`ir<sj`$ such that $`p_r,p_sW_1W_2`$, and the edges $`p_{r1}p_r,p_sp_{s+1}`$ are in lines, and $`sr`$ is odd; and therefore we may choose such $`r,s`$ with $`sr`$ minimum. If there is a line contained in the path $`p_r\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_s`$, say $`p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$, then since $`kh`$ is even, one of the paths $`p_r\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h`$ and $`p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_s`$ is odd, contrary to the minimality of $`sr`$. So we may assume that $`p_r,\mathrm{},p_s`$ all belong to $`W_1`$. Since $`p_{r1}p_r,p_sp_{s+1}`$ are in lines, and $`p_r,p_sW_1`$, there exist $`q,t`$ with $`2q<r<s<tn`$ such that $`p_q\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_r`$ and $`p_s\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_t`$ are lines. All lines are even, so $`rq`$ and $`ts`$ are even, and therefore $`tq`$ is odd. Moreover $`p_q,p_tW_2`$, and none of $`p_{q+1},\mathrm{},p_{t1}`$ belongs to $`W_2`$, so and the path $`p_q\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_t`$ is odd, and $`z`$ has no neighbour in it, contrary to 2.2. This proves (2).
(3) There is an antipath $`x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}y_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}y_t`$ such that $`s,t>1`$ and $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_s\}`$, and $`Y=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_t\}`$.
For if $`|X|=1`$, $`X=\{x\}`$ say, then $`z\text{-}x\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$ between $`Y`$-complete vertices, and none of its internal vertices are $`Y`$-complete, contrary to 13.6. So $`|X|2`$, and similarly $`|Y|2`$. Hence there are at least two vertices $`xX`$ so that $`Xx`$ is anticonnected, and from (2) , $`XY=\mathrm{}`$, and there is a unique vertex $`xX`$ with nonneighbours in $`Y`$. By (2), there do not exist two vertices $`x^{}Xx`$ so that $`Xx^{}`$ is anticonnected; and therefore $`X`$ is an antipath with one end $`x^{}`$. The same applies for $`Y`$, and this proves (3).

Choose $`t^{}`$ with $`1t^{}t`$, minimum so that $`p_1`$ is nonadjacent to $`y_t^{}`$. (This is possible since $`p_1`$ is not $`Y`$-complete.) So $`x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}y_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}y_t^{}\text{-}p_1`$ is an antipath. Define $`W=(Xx_1)\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_{t^{}1}\}`$.
(4) For every subpath $`P^{}`$ of $`P`$, if the ends of $`P^{}`$ are adjacent to $`x_1`$, then there are an even number of $`W`$-complete edges in $`P^{}`$.
For suppose not; then we may choose $`P^{}`$ so that no internal vertex of $`P^{}`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$. Let $`P^{}`$ be $`p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ say, where $`1h<kn`$. Choose $`i,j`$ with $`hijk`$ such that $`p_i,p_j`$ are $`W`$-complete, with $`i`$ minimum and $`j`$ maximum. Since $`p_k`$ is not $`X`$-complete it follows that $`p_k`$ is not $`W`$-complete (because it is adjacent to $`x_1`$), and so $`j<k`$. Since there are an odd number of $`W`$-complete edges in $`p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$, it follows that $`kh+2`$, and $`x_1\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}x_1`$ is a hole (so $`kh`$ is even), containing an odd number of $`W`$-complete edges. By 2.3 it contains exactly one, and only two $`W`$-complete vertices; so $`j=i+1`$. The path $`z\text{-}x_1\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ has both ends $`W`$-complete, and no internal vertex $`W`$-complete, and the $`W`$-complete vertex $`p_j`$ has no neighbour in its interior (since $`j<k`$); so it is even, by 2.2, and hence $`ih`$ is even. Since $`kh`$ is even, it follows that $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ is an odd path; and again its ends are $`W`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. By 13.6 it has length 3, so $`k=j+1`$; and by 2.2, every $`W`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`p_k,x_1`$. But no $`W`$-complete vertex in $`P`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$ except $`p_1`$, since no other vertex of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete. So every $`W`$-complete vertex in $`Pp_1`$ is adjacent to $`p_k`$, and so must be one of $`p_{k1},p_{k+1}`$. In particular, since $`i<k1`$ it follows that $`i=1`$, and so $`j=2,k=3`$, and the $`W`$-complete vertices in $`P`$ are $`p_1,p_2`$ and possibly $`p_4`$.

By 17.4 (with $`X`$ and $`Y`$ exchanged), $`p_2`$ is nonadjacent to $`y_t^{}`$. Choose $`d`$ with $`1dn`$ minimum so that $`y_t^{}`$ is adjacent to $`p_d`$; then $`d3`$. Then the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_d\text{-}y_t^{}\text{-}z`$ has length $`4`$, and its ends are $`W\{x_1\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so it is even by 13.6. Hence $`d`$ is odd, and the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_d\text{-}y_t^{}`$ is odd. None of its internal vertices are $`X`$-complete, and the $`X`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in its interior, and one end $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, so the other end $`y_t^{}`$ is not; and hence $`t^{}=1`$, since all other vertices of $`Y`$ are $`X`$-complete. So $`W=Xx_1`$. Let $`V=Xx_s`$. Now the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_d\text{-}y_1`$ is between $`V`$-complete vertices, and is odd and has length $`>1`$, and the $`V`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in its interior; so by 2.2, there is a $`V`$-complete edge in its interior. Choose $`c`$ with $`2cd`$ minimum such that $`p_c`$ is $`V`$-complete. Since $`p_2`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_1`$ it follows that $`c3`$. Since $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_c`$ is between $`V`$-complete vertices and its internal vertices are not $`V`$-complete and $`z`$ has no neighbour in it, it is even by 2.2, and so $`c`$ is odd. We already saw that $`p_1,p_2`$ and possibly $`p_4`$ are $`W`$-complete, and $`c3`$, so we may choose $`b`$ with $`2bc`$ maximum such that $`p_b`$ is $`W`$-complete. Hence $`b=2`$ or 4. The path $`p_b\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_c`$ is odd, and $`p_b`$ is $`W`$-complete, and $`p_c`$ is $`V`$-complete, and no other vertices of the path are either $`W`$\- or $`V`$-complete. If $`cb>1`$ then $`p_b\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_c,W,V`$ is a counterexample to the theorem, contradicting the optimality of $`X,Y,P`$ . So $`c=b+1`$. Then $`z\text{-}p_b\text{-}x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}p_c\text{-}z`$ is an antihole , so $`s`$ is odd. But then $`p_2\text{-}x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}y_1\text{-}p_2`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. This proves (4).

Choose $`h`$ with $`1hn`$ maximum such that $`x_1`$ is adjacent to $`p_h`$. Since $`x_1\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is between $`Y`$-complete vertices (since $`s2`$) and none of its internal vertices are $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in its interior, this path either has length 1 or even length by 2.2. So either $`h=n`$ or $`h`$ is odd. From the optimality of $`P,X,Y`$, it follows that $`P,W,Y`$ is not a counterexample to the theorem, and so there are an odd number of $`W`$-complete edges in $`P`$. Since $`x_1`$ is adjacent to $`p_1`$, from (4) there are an even number of $`W`$-complete edges between $`p_1`$ and $`p_h`$, so there are an odd number in the path $`p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$, and in particular $`h<n`$, so $`h`$ is odd. Choose $`i,j`$ with $`hijn`$ such that $`p_i,p_j`$ are $`W`$-complete, with $`i`$ minimum and $`j`$ maximum. Hence $`j>i`$. Since $`z\text{-}x_1\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is a path of length $`2`$ between $`W`$-complete vertices, and its internal vertices are not $`W`$-complete, and the $`W`$-complete vertex $`p_j`$ has no neighbour in its interior, it follows from 2.2 that $`ih`$ is even.
(5) $`h>1`$.
For assume $`h=1`$; so $`p_1`$ is the only neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`P`$. Let $`S`$ be the antipath

$$x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}y_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}y_t^{}\text{-}p_1.$$

Now $`x_1\text{-}S\text{-}p_1\text{-}z`$ is an antipath, of length $`4`$; all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`Pp_1`$, and its ends do not. By 13.6 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that this antipath has even length and so $`S`$ has odd length. Its ends have no neighbours in $`P\{p_1,p_2\}`$, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and also has no neighbours in $`P\{p_1,p_2\}`$; so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, some internal vertex of $`S`$ has no neighbour in $`P\{p_1,p_2\}`$. But they are all adjacent to $`p_j`$ or to $`p_n`$, so $`j=2`$. By 17.4, $`p_2`$ is nonadjacent to $`y_t^{}`$, and also to $`x_1`$ since it is not $`X`$-complete. Therefore $`p_2\text{-}x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s\text{-}y_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}y_t^{}\text{-}p_2`$ is an antihole $`D`$ say. Choose $`d`$ with $`1dn`$ minimum so that $`y_t^{}`$ is adjacent to $`p_d`$; then $`d3`$, and so $`x_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_d\text{-}y_t^{}\text{-}x_1`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, with three vertices in common with $`D`$, namely $`p_2,x_1,y_t^{}`$. From 15.7, $`D`$ has length 4, and so $`t^{}=1`$ and $`s=2`$. Since $`W=\{x_2\}`$ and $`j=2`$, it follows that the only edges between $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`P`$ are $`x_1p_1,x_2p_1,x_2p_2`$. But then the three paths $`p_1\text{-}x_1,x_2\text{-}z,p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_d\text{-}y_1`$ form a long prism, a contradiction. This proves (5).

From (5), since $`p_h`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$, it follows that $`p_h`$ is not complete to $`Xx_1`$, and therefore $`h<i<j`$. Choose $`s^{}`$ with $`1s^{}s`$ minimum such that $`p_h`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_s^{}`$. So $`p_j\text{-}x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s^{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}p_j`$ is an antihole, and so $`s^{}`$ is even. Hence $`x_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}x_s^{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}z`$ is an odd antipath; all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`\{p_{h+1},\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and its ends do not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, that is, $`s^{}=2`$. The set $`F=\{x_2,p_h,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ is connected; the only neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_h`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`x_2`$. Since $`x_1,z`$ are $`(X\{x_1,x_2\})Y`$-complete, and $`p_h,x_2`$ are not (for $`p_h`$ is not $`Y`$-complete), it follows from 17.2 that there is a vertex in $`(X\{x_1,x_2\})Y`$ with no neighbour in $`F`$ except possibly $`x_2`$. But every vertex in $`(X\{x_1,x_2\})Y`$ is adjacent to either $`p_j`$ or to $`p_n`$, a contradiction. This proves 17.5.

## 18 Pseudowheels

Our next goal is to prove a version of 16.3 for “pseudowheels”, in which one of the “vertices” is really an anticonnected set. Fortunately we don’t need to generalize 16.3 completely; it is enough to generalize the case when there is a segment of the wheel of length 1, and one of its vertices has blown up to become the anticonnected set. (We did try to generalize 16.3 completely, but were unable to do it and it gave us a lot of trouble; so eventually we found a way to make do with this special case.)

We begin with an even more special case, a form of 15.3 when one vertex is replaced by an anticonnected set.

###### 18.1

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`p_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_4\text{-}p_5`$ be a track in $`G(XY)`$, induced except possibly for the edge $`p_2p_5`$. Let $`X`$ be complete to $`p_1,p_5`$ and not to $`p_2,p_3,p_4`$. If $`p_1,p_3,p_4`$ are $`Y`$-complete then so is one of $`p_2,p_5`$.

Proof. Assume not. Then in $`\overline{G}`$, $`\{p_1,p_3,p_5\}`$ is a triangle, and the connected set $`F=XY\{p_2,p_4\}`$ catches it. In $`\overline{G}`$, the only neighbours of $`p_5`$ in $`F`$ are in $`Y\{p_2\}`$, the only neighbours of $`p_3`$ in $`F`$ are in $`X`$, and the only neighbour of $`p_1`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_4`$. Hence no vertex of $`F`$ has two neighbours in the triangle, so by 17.1, $`F`$ contains a reflection of the triangle. So (back in $`G`$) there are vertices $`b_1X`$ and $`b_2Y\{p_2\}`$ such that $`b_1,b_2,p_4`$ are pairwise nonadjacent, and $`b_1`$ is adjacent to $`p_1,p_5`$ and not $`p_3`$, and $`b_2`$ is adjacent to $`p_1,p_3`$ and not $`p_5`$. Since $`p_4`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`b_2,p_4`$ are nonadjacent it follows that $`b_2Y`$, and so $`b_2=p_2`$. If $`p_2,p_5`$ are adjacent then $`Y`$ and the six vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_5,b_1`$ contradict 15.3, and otherwise they form an odd wheel, a contradiction. This proves 18.1.

There is a reformulation of 13.7 that we sometimes need:

###### 18.2

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ with even length $`>0`$, with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ in order, so that $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, $`p_n`$ is not $`X`$-complete and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex of $`P`$. Suppose that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`G`$ nonadjacent to both $`p_{n1},p_{n2}`$. Then either:

* there is an odd number of $`X`$-complete edges in $`P`$, or
* $`n=3`$ and there is an odd antipath joining $`p_{n1}`$ and $`p_n`$ with interior in $`X`$.

Proof. Choose an $`X`$-complete vertex $`p_i`$ in $`P`$ with $`i`$ maximum. Suppose first that $`i`$ is even. Then the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is odd, and we may assume that an even number of its edges are $`X`$-complete. So it has length $`>1`$; by 2.3, none of its internal vertices are $`X`$-complete; and by 13.6 it has length 3, and there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ joining $`p_2,p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$. But there is another, $`R`$ say, with interior in $`Y`$, which also must be odd. Hence $`R`$ cannot be completed to an antihole via $`p_3\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_2`$, and so $`n4`$. Since $`n`$ is odd it follows that $`n=3`$; but then by hypothesis there is an $`Y`$-complete vertex $`v`$ nonadjacent to $`p_1,p_2`$, and then $`v\text{-}p_1\text{-}R\text{-}p_2\text{-}v`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction.

Now we assume that $`i`$ is odd. Hence the path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is even, and by 13.7 it has length 2. Let $`Q`$ be the antipath between $`p_{n2},p_{n1}`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and $`R`$ the antipath between $`p_{n1},p_n`$ with interior in $`X`$. By hypothesis there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex nonadjacent to $`p_{n1},p_{n2}`$, and therefore $`Q`$ is even, so $`R`$ is odd by 13.7. Hence $`R`$ cannot be completed to an antihole via $`p_n\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_{n1}`$; and so $`n=3`$ and the theorem holds. This proves 18.2.

We need the following extension of 2.3.

###### 18.3

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`P`$ be a path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ of $`G(XY)`$, where $`n5`$, such that $`p_1,p_n`$ are the only $`X`$-complete vertices of $`P`$. Then $`P`$ has even length. Assume that at least two vertices of $`P`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and let $`P^{}`$ be a maximal subpath of $`P`$ such that none of its internal vertices are $`Y`$-complete. Then the length of $`P^{}`$ has the same parity as the number of ends of $`P^{}`$ that belong to $`\{p_1,p_n\}`$ and are not $`Y`$-complete. Moreover, the number of $`Y`$-complete edges of $`P`$ has the same parity as the number of elements of $`\{p_1,p_n\}`$ that are $`Y`$-complete.

Proof. Since $`P`$ is a path of length $`4`$, and its ends are $`X`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, it follows that $`P`$ has even length. Let $`P^{}`$ be a maximal subpath of $`P`$ of length $`2`$ in which no internal vertex is $`Y`$-complete, and assume first that both ends of $`P^{}`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Suppose $`P^{}`$ has odd length, and let its ends be $`p_i,p_j`$ where $`i<j`$. Then 13.6 implies that $`ji`$ = 3, and there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ joining $`p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$ with interior in $`Y`$. Since $`n5`$, either $`n>j`$ or $`1<i`$, and from the symmetry between $`p_1`$ and $`p_n`$ we may assume the latter. Since $`p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$ are not $`X`$-complete, they are joined by an antipath $`Q^{}`$ with interior in $`X`$. Since $`QQ^{}`$ is an antihole it follows that $`Q^{}`$ is odd. But then $`p_n\text{-}p_{i+1}\text{-}Q^{}\text{-}p_{i+2}\text{-}p_n`$ is an odd antihole, a contradiction. So in this case $`P^{}`$ has even length. We may therefore assume that an end of $`P^{}`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, and from the maximality of $`P^{}`$, any such end is either $`p_1`$ or $`p_n`$, and we may assume it is $`p_n`$ from the symmetry. The other end of $`P^{}`$ is therefore not $`p_1`$ since at least two vertices of $`P`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and so it is $`p_i`$, where $`i`$ is maximum with $`2in`$ such that $`p_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Since $`i>1`$, no vertex of $`P^{}`$ is $`X`$-complete except $`p_n`$. Suppose that $`P^{}`$ is even; then we may apply 13.7. We deduce that $`P^{}`$ has length 2, and so $`i=n2`$. Now the antipath joining $`p_{n2},p_{n1}`$ with interior in $`X`$ is even since it can be completed to an antihole via $`p_{n1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_{n2}`$; and the antipath joining $`p_{n1},p_n`$ with interior in $`Y`$ is even since it can be completed to an antihole via $`p_n\text{-}p_h\text{-}p_{n1}`$, where $`p_h`$ is some $`Y`$-complete vertex with $`1h<i`$. But this contradicts 13.7. Consequently $`P^{}`$ is odd, as required.

By counting we see that that the number of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$ has the same parity as the number of ends of $`P`$ that are $`Y`$-complete. This proves 18.3.

Let us say a pseudowheel in a graph $`G`$ is a triple $`(X,Y,P)`$, satisfying:

* $`X,Y`$ are disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other
* $`P`$ is a path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ of $`G(XY)`$, where $`n5`$
* $`p_1,p_n`$ are the only $`X`$-complete vertices of $`P`$
* $`p_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and so is at least one other vertex of $`P`$; and $`p_2,p_n`$ are not $`Y`$-complete.

###### 18.4

Let $`(X,Y,P)`$ be a pseudowheel in a graph $`G_7`$, where $`P`$ is $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Then $`P`$ contains an odd number, at least $`3`$, of $`Y`$-complete edges, and $`P`$ has length $`6`$.

Proof. By 18.3, $`P`$ contains an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges, since an odd number of ends of $`P`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Suppose it only contains one, say $`p_ip_{i+1}`$. Since $`p_2,p_n`$ are not $`Y`$-complete it follows that $`3in2`$. So there is an antipath joining $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$ with interior in $`X`$, and by 15.4 applied to the path $`P`$, this antipath has length 2, that is, there exists $`xX`$ nonadjacent to both $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$. Let $`C`$ be a hole containing $`x,p_i,p_{i+1}`$ and with $`CxP`$. Then $`(C,Y)`$ is an odd wheel, since $`C`$ contains the $`Y`$-complete vertices $`x,p_i,p_{i+1}`$ and it also contains $`p_{i1},p_{i+2}`$ which are not $`Y`$-complete, contrary to $`G_7`$. So at least three edges of $`P`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and therefore $`P`$ has length $`6`$. This proves 18.4.

A pseudowheel $`(X,Y,P)`$ in $`G`$ is optimal if

* there is no pseudowheel $`(X^{},Y^{},P^{})`$ in $`G`$ such that the number of $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices in $`P^{}`$ is less than the number of $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`P`$, and
* there is no pseudowheel $`(X,Y^{},P)`$ in $`G`$ such that $`YY^{}`$.

###### 18.5

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`(X,Y,P)`$ be an optimal pseudowheel in $`G`$, where $`P`$ is $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Let $`vV(G)(XYV(P))`$, not $`Y`$-complete. Then there is a subpath $`P^{}`$ of $`P`$ such that

* $`V(P^{})`$ contains all the neighbours of $`v`$ in $`P`$,
* there is no $`Y`$-complete vertex in the interior of $`P^{}`$, and
* if $`v`$ is $`X`$-complete, then either $`V(P^{})=\{p_1\}`$, or $`p_nV(P^{})`$.

Proof. Choose $`h,k`$ with $`1hkn`$ such that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_h,p_k`$, with $`h`$ minimum and $`k`$ maximum. (If this is impossible then the theorem holds.) Choose $`i,j`$ with $`2ijn`$ such that $`p_i,p_j`$ are $`Y`$-complete, with $`i`$ minimum and $`j`$ maximum. By 18.3 it follows that $`i`$ is odd and $`j`$ is even, and $`ji3`$ by 18.4, since all $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$ lie in the path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$.
(1) If $`v`$ is both adjacent to $`p_1`$ and $`X`$-complete then the theorem holds.
For from the optimality of $`(X,Y,P)`$ it follows that $`(X,Y\{v\},P)`$ is not a pseudowheel, and so $`p_1`$ is the only $`Y\{v\}`$-complete vertex in $`P`$. By 2.11 (with $`X,Y`$ replaced by $`Y\{v\},X`$) we deduce that either there exists $`yY\{v\}`$ nonadjacent to all $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$, or there exist nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2Y\{v\}`$ so that $`y_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}y_2`$ is a path. But $`p_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`3in1`$, so the second statement does not hold; and the first holds only of $`y=v`$. This proves (1).
(2) We may assume that there is a path $`Q`$ from $`v`$ to some vertex $`q`$, such that $`q`$ is the only $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`Q`$, and $`V(Qv)\{p_{i+1},\mathrm{},p_{j1}\}`$.
For by 18.3 and the fact that there is a $`Y`$-complete edge in $`P`$, it follows that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_{i+1},\mathrm{},p_{j1}\}`$. If $`v`$ has a neighbour in this set then the claim holds, so suppose it does not. We may assume $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_i\}`$, for otherwise the theorem holds. Suppose it also has a neighbour in $`\{p_j,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. Then there is a hole $`C`$ containing $`v`$, with $`CvP`$, such that $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$ is a path of $`C`$. Since all $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$ belong to this path, and there are an odd number of them, it follows that there is an odd number ($`3`$) of $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$, contrary to 2.3. So $`v`$ has no neighbours in $`\{p_j,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and hence $`ki`$. We may therefore assume that $`v`$ is $`X`$-complete, so $`k>1`$ by (1). The path $`v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ has length $`4`$, and its ends are $`X`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6 it has even length, and therefore the path $`v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ is even. But $`v`$ is the only $`X`$-complete vertex in $`v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$, and $`p_i`$ is its only $`Y`$-complete vertex (since $`k>1`$), so by 13.7, this path has length 2, and so $`k=i1`$. There is no odd antipath joining $`v,p_k`$ with interior in $`Y`$, since the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_j`$ is nonadjacent to $`v,p_k`$; and there is no odd antipath joining $`p_k,p_i`$ with interior in $`X`$, since the $`X`$-complete vertex $`p_n`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_k,p_i`$, contrary to 13.7. This proves (2).
(3) If $`v`$ is $`X`$-complete then the theorem holds.
For then we may assume that $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_1`$ by (1). If $`h`$ is odd then $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v`$ is an odd path with ends $`X`$-complete and its internal vertices not, so it has length 3 by 13.6; but the $`X`$-complete vertex $`p_n`$ has no neighbour in its interior (since $`n5`$), contrary to 2.2. So $`h`$ is even. Suppose that one of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_h`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Then $`h2`$ since $`p_2`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, so $`h4`$, and $`h<j`$ by (2). Hence $`(X,Y,p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v)`$ is a pseudowheel, not containing $`p_j`$, contrary to the optimality of $`(P,X,Y)`$. So there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_h\}`$, and so $`i>h`$. Let $`Q,q`$ be as in (2). Since the $`XY`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbours in $`Q`$, the pairs $`(V(Q),X),(V(Q),Y)`$ are balanced by 2.6; so by 2.9, $`Q`$ has odd length. Hence the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}q`$ has odd length, and its ends are $`Y`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 13.6 it has length 3; so $`h=2`$ and $`v`$ is adjacent to $`q`$. Also every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`v,p_2`$, by 2.2, so they are all adjacent to $`v`$ except $`p_1`$ and possibly $`p_3`$. Suppose $`p_i`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, and is therefore $`Y\{v\}`$-complete. Then the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i`$ has even length; the only $`X`$-complete vertex in it is $`p_1`$; and the only $`Y\{v\}`$-complete vertex in it is $`p_i`$. By 13.7 it has length 2. But there is an $`X`$-complete vertex nonadjacent to both $`p_2,p_3`$, namely $`p_n`$, and there is a $`Y\{v\}`$-complete vertex nonadjacent to both $`p_1,p_2`$, since there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_4,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ by 18.3, and it is necessarily adjacent to $`v`$ as we already saw. Hence both pairs $`(\{p_1,p_2\},Y\{v\})`$ and $`(\{p_2,p_3\},X)`$ are balanced by 2.6, contrary to 13.7. This proves that $`p_i`$ is not adjacent to $`v`$, and therefore $`i=3`$. Choose $`h^{}>i`$ minimum so that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_h^{}`$. From the hole $`v\text{-}p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h^{}\text{-}v`$ it follows that $`h^{}`$ is even. From 18.2 applied to the even path $`p_3\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h^{}\text{-}v`$, and using the fact that the $`XY`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in this path, we deduce that there is a $`Y`$-complete edge in $`p_3\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h^{}\text{-}v`$. Since $`v`$ is adjacent to every $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$ except $`p_1,p_3`$, it follows that the only such edge is $`p_3p_4`$, and therefore $`h^{}=4`$. But then the track $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_4\text{-}v`$ violates 18.1. This proves (3).

Henceforth we may therefore assume that $`v`$ is not $`X`$-complete. If $`kh+1`$ then the theorem holds, so we assume $`kh+2`$.
(4) If $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`p_1`$ then the theorem holds.
For let $`P^{}`$ be the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Suppose that any of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_h,p_k,\mathrm{},p_n`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Then $`P^{}`$ has length $`4`$, since $`h>1`$ and $`p_2,p_n`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, and so $`(X,Y,P^{})`$ is a pseudowheel. By the optimality of $`(X,Y,P)`$ it follows that there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices among $`\{p_{h+1},\mathrm{},p_{k1}\}`$; but then the claim holds. So we may assume that none of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_h,p_k,\mathrm{},p_n`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and therefore $`h<ij<k`$, and since $`ji3`$ it follows that $`kh5`$. Let $`Q,q`$ be as in (2). Then $`q\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is a path, $`R`$ say; the only $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`R`$ is $`q`$; the only $`X`$-complete vertex in $`R`$ is $`p_n`$; and the $`XY`$-complete vertex $`p_1`$ has no neighbour in its interior. By 2.9, $`R`$ is odd. Therefore the paths $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}q`$ and $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_h\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ have lengths of opposite parity. For the first path, its ends are $`Y`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. For the second, its ends are $`X`$-complete and its internal vertices are not. So one of them has length 3, and so $`h=2`$, and there is an odd antipath joining $`v,p_2`$ with interior in one of $`X,Y`$. Since $`v,p_2`$ are joined by an antipath with interior in $`X`$ and by another with interior in $`Y`$, and all such pairs of antipaths have the same parity (since their union is an antihole), it follows that $`v,p_2`$ are joined by an odd antipath with interior in each of $`X`$,$`Y`$. Hence every $`X`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`v,p_2`$, and so is every $`Y`$-complete vertex. In particular $`k=n`$, and $`v`$ is adjacent to every $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$ except $`p_1`$ and possibly $`p_3`$. But then $`R`$ has length 2, contradicting that it has odd length. This proves (4).

Henceforth then we assume that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_1`$ and not $`X`$-complete.
(5) $`p_{n1}`$ is not $`Y\{v\}`$-complete.
For suppose it is. Since $`n7`$, it follows from 13.6 applied to $`Pp_n`$ and $`Y\{v\}`$ that there is a $`Y\{v\}`$-complete vertex in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n2}\}`$; choose such a vertex, $`p_j^{}`$ say, with $`j^{}`$ maximum. Now $`j=n1`$. If $`j^{}<j1`$ then $`jj^{}`$ is even from 2.2 applied to $`p_j^{}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$; but then the odd path $`p_j^{}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ contains no $`Y\{v\}`$-complete edges, and $`p_1`$ is $`X`$-complete, $`Y\{v\}`$-complete and has no neighbours in the path $`p_j^{}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$, contrary to 17.5. So $`j^{}=j1`$. Let $`F=XY\{v,p_{n1}\}`$. Then $`F`$ is anticonnected, and each of $`p_1,p_{n2},p_n`$ has a nonneighbour in $`F`$; the only nonneighbour of $`p_1`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_{n1}`$; all nonneighbours of $`p_{n2}`$ in $`F`$ belong to $`X`$; and all nonneighbours of $`p_n`$ in $`F`$ belong to $`Y\{v\}`$. So in $`\overline{G}`$, the connected set $`F`$ catches the triangle $`\{p_1,p_{n2},p_n\}`$, and by 17.1 it contains a reflection of the triangle, which is impossible since $`p_{n1}`$ is complete (in $`G`$) to $`Y\{v\}`$. This proves (5).
(6) $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`p_n`$.
For suppose it is. By 18.4 there are at least three $`Y`$-complete edges in $`P`$, and so there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_a`$ in $`P`$ with $`a3`$, even and different from $`p_{n1}`$. Thus $`ja`$ is even, and so by 2.3 there is an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges in the even path $`p_a\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$, and hence in the odd path $`p_a\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. But $`p_a`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`X\{v\}`$-complete vertex in this path, contrary to 17.5. This proves (6).
(7) There is no neighbour $`p_m`$ of $`v`$ in $`P`$ with $`1mn`$ so that $`v,p_m`$ are joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`Y`$.
For suppose such a neighbour exists. So $`1<m<n`$ by (6), and there is an antipath joining $`v,p_m`$ with interior in $`X`$, which therefore is also odd, since its union with the antipath through $`Y`$ is an antihole. Since it cannot be completed to an odd antihole via $`p_m\text{-}p_n\text{-}v`$, it follows that $`m=n1`$, and in particular $`m`$ is even. Since $`j`$ is even, either $`p_j=p_m`$ or $`p_j`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_m`$; and in either case it follows that $`p_j`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, since every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`v,p_m`$. By (5) $`nj3`$ and odd, and the path $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ (with anticonnected sets $`X`$ and $`Y\{v\}`$) violates 17.5. This proves (7).

Suppose that $`jk`$, and let $`P^{}`$ be the path $`p_1\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Then $`P^{}`$ has length $`4`$, since $`p_{n1}`$ is not $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, and so $`(X,Y,P^{})`$ is a pseudowheel; and by the optimality of $`(X,Y,P)`$ it follows that there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`p_2\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{k1}`$, contrary to (2). So $`j<k`$. Let $`Q,q`$ be as in (2), and assume first that $`Q`$ is even. Then the path $`p_1\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}q`$ has odd length; its ends are $`Y`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, and its internal vertices are joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`Y`$, contrary to (7). So $`Q`$ is odd.

Next assume that $`k`$ is even. Then the path $`p_1\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, and $`k=n1`$, and its internal vertices $`v,p_{n1}`$ are joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`X`$. Since $`p_{n1}`$ is not $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, they are also joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`Y`$, contrary to (7). This proves that $`k`$ is odd. Hence the path $`q\text{-}Q\text{-}v\text{-}p_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is even, and by (6) it has length $`>2`$ contrary to 13.7. This proves 18.5.

###### 18.6

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`(X,Y,P)`$ be an optimal pseudowheel in $`G`$, where $`P`$ is $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Let $`FV(G)(XYV(P))`$ be connected, such that no vertex in $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Then there is a subpath $`P^{}`$ of $`P`$ such that

* $`V(P^{})`$ contains all the attachments of $`F`$ in $`P`$,
* there is no $`Y`$-complete vertex in the interior of $`P^{}`$, and
* if some vertex of $`F`$ is $`X`$-complete then either $`V(P^{})=\{p_1\}`$ or $`p_nV(P^{})`$.

Proof. Suppose the theorem is false, and choose a minimal counterexample $`F`$. From 18.5 $`|F|2`$.
(1) Some vertex in $`F`$ is $`X`$-complete.
For suppose not. Since $`F`$ is a counterexample, it has attachments $`p_a,p_c`$ such that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_b`$ with $`a<b<c`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`F`$ is the interior of a path $`p_a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_c`$. Let $`W_1`$ be the set of attachments of $`Ff_k`$ in $`P`$, and $`W_2`$ the set of attachments of $`Ff_1`$ in $`P`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, for $`i=1,2`$ there is a subpath $`p_{a_i}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{b_i}`$ of $`P`$ ( $`=P_i`$ say), so that no internal vertex of $`P_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and $`W_iV(P_i)`$. Choose $`P_1,P_2`$ minimal; then $`p_{a_1}`$ is a neighbour of some member of $`Ff_k`$, and therefore of $`f_1`$ from the minimality of $`F`$, and similarly $`p_{b_2}`$ is a neighbour of $`f_k`$, and $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{a_1}\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_{b_2}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is a path $`P^{}`$ say. Suppose that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P^{}`$ different from $`p_1`$. Then $`P^{}`$ has length $`4`$, and $`(X,Y,P^{})`$ is a pseudowheel, contrary to the optimality of $`(X,Y,P)`$. So there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`P^{}`$. But also there are none in $`\{p_{a_1+1},\mathrm{},p_{b_11}\}`$ and none in $`\{p_{a_2+1},\mathrm{},p_{b_21}\}`$, so all the $`Y`$-complete vertices of $`P`$ belong to $`\{p_{b_1},\mathrm{},p_{a_2}\}`$, except for $`p_1`$. By 18.4 there are an odd number, at least 3, of $`Y`$-complete edges in this path. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_{a_2}\text{-}p_{a_21}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{b_1}\text{-}f_1`$ is a hole, which therefore also contains an odd number $`3`$ of $`Y`$-complete edges. But this contradicts 2.3. This proves (1).

From (1), since $`F`$ is a counterexample, there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`F`$ and there exists $`a`$ with $`1<a<b`$ such that $`p_a`$ is an attachment of $`F`$ and $`p_b`$ is $`Y`$-complete. From the minimality of $`F`$, there is a path $`p_a\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ such that $`F=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ and $`f_k`$ is the unique $`X`$-complete vertex in $`F`$. Let $`W_1`$ be the set of attachments of $`Ff_k`$ in $`P`$, and $`W_2`$ the set of attachments of $`Ff_1`$ in $`P`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, for $`i=1,2`$ there is a subpath $`p_{a_i}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{b_i}`$ of $`P`$ ( $`=P_i`$ say), so that no internal vertex of $`P_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and $`W_iV(P_i)`$, and either $`b_2=n`$ or $`a_2=b_2=1`$.

First assume that $`b_2=n`$. Choose $`P_1,P_2`$ minimal; then $`p_{a_1}`$ is a neighbour of $`f_1`$, and $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{a_1}\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$ is a path $`P^{}`$ say. Suppose that there is a $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P^{}`$ different from $`p_1`$. Then $`P^{}`$ has length $`4`$, and $`(X,Y,P^{})`$ is a pseudowheel, contrary to the optimality of $`(X,Y,P)`$. So there are no $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`P^{}`$. But also there are none in $`\{p_{a_1+1},\mathrm{},p_{b_11}\}`$ and none in $`\{p_{a_2+1},\mathrm{},p_{b_21}\}`$, so all the $`Y`$-complete vertices of $`P`$ belong to $`\{p_{b_1},\mathrm{},p_{a_2}\}`$, except for $`p_1`$. By 18.4 there are an odd number, at least 3, of $`Y`$-complete edges in this path. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_{a_2}\text{-}p_{a_21}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{b_1}\text{-}f_1`$ is a hole, which therefore also contains an odd number $`3`$ of $`Y`$-complete edges. But this contradicts 2.3.

So we may assume that $`a_2=b_2=1`$, and that $`p_1W_2`$, and therefore $`b_1>1`$. From the minimality of $`F`$ there are no edges between $`Ff_1`$ and $`V(P)p_1`$. Choose $`P_1`$ minimal. So $`p_{b_1}`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$, and either $`a_1=1`$ or $`p_{a_1}`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$. Suppose first that an odd number of edges of the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{a_1}`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Hence $`p_1`$ has no neighbours in $`Ff_k`$, and so $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{a_1}\text{-}f_1`$ is a hole. It contains an odd number of $`Y`$-complete edges, and at least three $`Y`$-complete vertices, because $`p_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`p_2`$ is not, a contradiction to 2.3. So there are an even number of $`Y`$-complete edges in the path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{a_1}`$, and therefore an odd number in $`p_{b_1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$, since there are an odd number in $`P`$, and none in $`P_1`$. Therefore there are an odd number in the path $`f_k\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_1\text{-}p_{b_1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ ($`=R`$ say). But an edge of $`p_{b_1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`p_n`$ is not, so $`b_2n2`$; and since $`k2`$, it follows that $`R`$ has length $`4`$. Also, at least two vertices of $`R`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and its ends are not $`Y`$-complete, and its ends are its only $`X`$-complete vertices. This contradicts 18.3, So there is no such $`F`$. This proves 18.6.

Now we come to the main result of this section, 1.3.8, which we restate, the following.

###### 18.7

Let $`G_7`$. If it contains a pseudowheel then it admits a balanced skew partition. In particular, every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_8`$.

Proof. Suppose $`G`$ contains a pseudowheel; then it contains an optimal pseudowheel, say $`(X,Y,P)`$, where $`P`$ is $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$. Let $`Z`$ be the set of all $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`G`$. So $`Y,Z`$ are disjoint, nonempty, and complete to each other, and $`|Z|2`$. Let $`F_0=V(G)(YZ)`$. By 15.2, we may assume that $`F_0`$ is connected and every vertex in $`Z`$ has a neighbour in $`F_0`$, for otherwise the theorem holds. Choose $`i>1`$ so that $`p_ip_{i+1}`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and let $`A`$,$`B`$ be the two components of $`V(Pp_i)`$. Since $`p_1,p_{i+1}`$ both have neighbours in $`F_0`$, it follows that $`F_0`$ contains a minimal connected set so that there are vertices in $`A`$ and in $`B`$ with neighbours in $`F`$. From the minimality of $`F`$ it is disjoint from $`V(P)`$; and disjoint from $`XY`$ since $`XZ`$, contrary to 18.6. This proves 18.7.

## 19 Wheel systems - the base case

Our next goal is to show that if there is a wheel in a member of $`_8`$ then the graph admits a balanced skew partition, and in particular that there is no wheel in a recalcitrant graph. Assuming there is no balanced skew partition, the strategy is to show that there is no anticonnected set which is maximal such that there is a wheel of which it is a hub. In other words, we want to show that given any wheel, there is a second wheel whose hub is a proper superset of the hub of the first wheel. To prove this, we need to generalize wheels into what we call “wheel systems”, and prove a long and complicated theorem about wheel systems, by induction on some parameter. The base case of this inductive proof is the theorem of this section. (Incidentally, we will not need the hypothesis that there is no pseudowheel in $`G`$ for several more sections, so what we are proving here is true also for graphs in $`_7`$, and we formulate it that way, although we only need it for graphs in $`_8`$.)

###### 19.1

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`Y,AV(G)`$, so that $`Y`$ is anticonnected and $`A`$ is connected. Let $`x_0,x_1,v,zV(G)(YA)`$ be distinct, satisfying:

* $`x_0,x_1`$ are nonadjacent and are both $`Y`$-complete,
* $`z`$ is adjacent to $`x_0,x_1,v`$ and has no neighbour in $`A`$,
* no vertex in $`A`$ is adjacent to both $`x_0,x_1`$,
* $`v`$ is nonadjacent to one of $`x_0,x_1`$, and is not $`Y`$-complete,
* every vertex in $`Y`$ that is nonadjacent to $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`A`$ and is adjacent to $`z`$, and
* $`x_0,x_1,v`$ all have neighbours in $`A`$.

Then $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and there is a wheel $`(C,Y)`$ in $`G`$ with $`x_0,x_1,zV(C)\{x_0,x_1,z\}A`$.

Proof. We assume by induction that the result holds for all smaller sets $`Y`$; and for fixed $`Y`$, we assume that $`|A|`$ is minimum satisfying the hypotheses.
(1) There exists $`yY`$ adjacent to $`z`$ and with a neighbour in $`A`$, so that $`Yy`$ is empty or anticonnected.
For if $`|Y|=1`$, let $`Y=\{y\}`$; then since $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete it follows that $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`v`$, and therefore is adjacent to $`z`$ and has a neighbour in $`A`$ and the claim holds. So assume $`|Y|>1`$, and choose distinct $`y_1,y_2Y`$ so that $`Yy_i`$ is anticonnected (i = 1,2). Not both $`y_1,y_2`$ is the unique nonneighbour of $`v`$ in $`Y`$; so we may assume that $`v`$ is not $`Yy_2`$-complete. By the minimality of $`|A|+|Y|`$, $`z`$ is $`Yy_2`$-complete and there is a $`Yy_2`$-complete vertex in $`A`$; and in particular, $`y_1`$ is adjacent to $`z`$ and has a neighbour in $`A`$, so we may set $`y=y_1`$. This proves (1).

Let $`y`$ be as in (1), and let $`Y^{}=Yy`$.
(2) Either $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and nonadjacent to $`y`$, or $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and there is a path $`x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ from $`x_0`$ to $`x_1`$ with interior in $`A`$, containing at least two $`Y^{}`$-complete edges.
For if $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete the first assertion holds, so we assume not; and in particular $`Y^{}`$ is nonempty. By induction $`z`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete, and therefore $`Y`$-complete, and there is a path as in the claim. This proves (2).
(3) There is no connected $`FA`$ containing neighbours of all of $`x_0,x_1,v,y`$ except $`A`$ itself.
For suppose there is. From the minimality of $`A`$, some member of $`Y`$ has no neighbour in $`F`$ and is nonadjacent to $`v`$. In particular, $`v`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, so $`Y^{}`$ is nonempty and by (2), at least two vertices of $`A`$ are $`Y^{}`$-complete. Since $`FA`$, there exists $`fAF`$ so that $`Af`$ is connected. But every vertex in $`Y\{x_0,x_1,v\}`$ has a neighbour in $`Af`$; for all members of $`Y^{}`$ have at least two neighbours in $`A`$ (since $`A`$ contains two $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices), and $`x_0,x_1,v,y`$ have neighbours in $`F`$. This contradicts the minimality of $`A`$, and therefore proves (3).

Let $`x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ be a path from $`x_0`$ to $`x_1`$ with interior in $`A`$, and let $`C`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$.
(4) If any vertex of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ is $`Y\{v\}`$-complete then $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete; and if $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete then we may assume that no edge of $`x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete. In particular neither of $`p_1,p_n`$ is $`Y\{v\}`$-complete.
For let $`p_i`$ be $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, say, and suppose $`z`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. By (2), $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and nonadjacent to $`y`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`z,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$, and let $`R`$ be an antipath between $`v,p_i`$ with interior in $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$. Then $`z\text{-}Q\text{-}y\text{-}v\text{-}R\text{-}p_i\text{-}z`$ is an antihole, meeting the hole $`C`$ in at least three vertices, contrary to 15.7. This proves the first assertion. The second is immediate, for otherwise $`(C,Y)`$ satisfies the theorem. For the third, note that if say $`p_n`$ is $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, then $`p_nx_1`$ is a $`Y`$-complete edge, a contradiction. This proves (4).
(5) If $`x_0`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, then $`v`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$.
For suppose $`v`$ is adjacent to one of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$, and choose $`i`$ with $`2in`$ maximum such that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$. Suppose first that $`i=n`$. Since $`x_0,x_1,p_n`$ belong to $`C`$, there is no antihole of length $`5`$ containing them by 15.7. By (4), $`p_n`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, and hence there is an antipath between $`p_n,v`$ with interior in this set, and it can be completed via $`v\text{-}x_1\text{-}x_0\text{-}p_n`$ to an antihole of length $`5`$ containing $`x_0,x_1,p_n`$, a contradiction. So $`i<n`$.

Since the hole $`C`$ is even, it follows that $`n`$ is odd. From the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ it follows that $`i`$ is odd. Since $`i>1`$, $`x_0\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$. Its ends are $`Y\{z\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6, $`Y\{z\}`$ is not anticonnected. Hence $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete. The ends of the same path are both $`Y`$-complete, so by 13.6, some edge of the path is $`Y`$-complete. Since $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, this edge belongs to $`C`$, contrary to (4). This proves (5).

Let us choose $`C`$ so that either $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete or $`(C,Y^{})`$ is a wheel (this is possible by (2)).
(6) If $`x_0`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, then not both $`v,y`$ have neighbours in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$.
For if they do, then by (5) $`p_1`$ is the only neighbour of $`v`$ in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. Suppose first that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`y`$. By (2), $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and $`(C,Y^{})`$ is a wheel, and so every vertex in $`Y^{}`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. By (4) $`p_1`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. Therefore $`z,x_0`$ are the only $`Y\{v\}`$-complete vertices in $`C`$, and by 2.10 there is a hat or a leap. Since all vertices in $`Y^{}`$ have a neighbour in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and $`y`$ is adjacent to $`x_1`$, it follows that there is no hat, and so $`y,v`$ form a leap, a contradiction since they are adjacent. So $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`y`$. Choose $`j`$ with $`1jn`$ minimum so that $`y`$ is adjacent to $`p_j`$. From the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ we deduce that $`j`$ is odd, and therefore $`x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}y\text{-}x_0`$ is not a hole, that is, $`j=1`$, and hence $`p_1`$ is adjacent to $`y`$. By (4) $`p_1`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete. If $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete, then an antipath between $`p_1`$ and $`y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be extended to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}p_1`$, and this antihole shares the vertices $`p_1,x_1,v`$ with the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$, contrary to 15.7. So $`v`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete. By (2), $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and $`(C,Y^{})`$ is a wheel. By 16.1 applied to the wheel $`(C,Y^{})`$ and vertex $`v`$, it follows that $`p_1`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and therefore $`Y\{v\}`$-complete, contrary to (4). This proves (6).
(7) Not both $`v,y`$ have neighbours in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$.
For by (6) we may assume that $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_0`$, and similarly nonadjacent to $`x_1`$. Choose $`i`$ with $`1in`$ maximum so that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$. From the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ it follows that $`i`$ is odd. Suppose first that $`v`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete. By (2), $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`(C,Y^{})`$ is a wheel. By 16.1, $`p_i,z`$ have the same wheel-parity, and so there are an odd number of $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$. By (4) no edge of the path $`x_0\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Consequently $`zx_1`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete edge of the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ ($`=C_1`$ say). Suppose that $`y`$ is nonadjacent to all $`v,p_i,\mathrm{},p_n`$. Now $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ by hypothesis, so $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,v\}`$ ($`=F`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{z,x_1,y\}`$. The only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`v`$; the only neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_n`$; and $`y`$ is nonadjacent to both $`v,p_n`$ by assumption. By 17.1, $`F`$ includes a reflection of the triangle; but then $`i=n`$ and there is an antihole of length 6 using $`z,x_1,p_n`$, contrary to 15.7. This proves that $`y`$ is adjacent to one of $`v,p_i,\mathrm{},p_n`$. Since there is an odd number of $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in the path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1`$, it follows that every member of $`Y`$ is adjacent to one of $`v,p_i,\mathrm{},p_n`$. Consequently $`Y`$ contains no hat for $`C_1`$. Assume that $`C_1`$ has length $`6`$. By 2.10, $`Y`$ contains a leap, so there are nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2Y`$ so that $`y_1\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}y_2`$ is a path, of odd length $`5`$. But the ends of this path are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 13.6. So $`C_1`$ has length 4, that is, $`i=n`$, and $`p_n`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. By (4) it follows that $`p_n`$ is nonadjacent to $`y`$, and therefore $`y`$ is adjacent to $`v`$ (since $`Y`$ contains no hat for $`C_1`$). Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`v,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$; then $`x_1\text{-}v\text{-}Q\text{-}y\text{-}p_n`$ is an antipath, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior, and $`x_0`$ is complete to all its interior except $`x_1`$, contrary to 15.6 applied to this antipath and the hole $`C`$. This proves (7) assuming that $`v`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete.

We therefore assume that $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete, and consequently nonadjacent to $`y`$. Now $`\{v,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ is connected and catches the triangle $`\{z,x_1,y\}`$. By 15.7, it contains no reflection of the triangle, since as before that would give an antihole of length 6 with 3 vertices in $`C`$. So by 17.1, there is a vertex in $`\{v,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ with two neighbours in the triangle. The only neighbour of $`z`$ in it is $`v`$, which is nonadjacent to both $`x_1,y`$. The only neighbour of $`x_1`$ in it is $`p_n`$, and therefore $`y`$ is adjacent to $`p_n`$. We recall that $`i`$ is maximum such that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$. Since $`y`$ is adjacent to $`p_n`$, we may choose $`j`$ with $`ijn`$ minimum such that $`y`$ is adjacent to $`p_j`$. From the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ we see that $`j`$ is odd. Suppose $`ji`$. Then the path $`v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}y`$ is even and has length $`4`$. By 13.7 with anticonnected sets $`\{x_0,x_1\},Y^{}\{z\}`$ we deduce that $`Y^{}\{z\}`$ is not anticonnected, and hence $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete. By 18.2 with sets $`\{x_0,x_1\},Y^{},`$ since the $`\{x_0,x_1\}Y^{}`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbours in the interior of $`P`$, it follows that there are an odd number of $`Y^{}`$-complete edges in the path $`v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}y`$. Since $`y`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, they all belong to the path $`v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$. Let $`C_1`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$; then $`(C_1,Y^{})`$ is a wheel. Now $`p_n`$ is not $`Y`$-complete by (4), and therefore not $`Y^{}`$-complete. Since there is no $`Y`$-complete edge in the odd path $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in its interior, it follows from 2.2 that $`p_j`$ is not $`Y`$-complete and hence not $`Y^{}`$-complete. Consequently $`p_j,p_n`$ have opposite wheel-parity (with respect to the wheel $`(C_1,Y^{})`$) and yet are both not $`Y^{}`$-complete, and so this wheel is an odd wheel, contrary to $`G_7`$. This proves that $`j=i`$, that is, $`y`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$.

Now suppose $`i<n`$. If $`p_i`$ is not $`Y`$-complete then an antipath between $`p_i`$ and $`y`$ with interior in $`Y`$ can be extended via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}p_i`$ to an antihole sharing the vertices $`p_i,x_1,v`$ with the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}p_i\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ ($`=C_1`$ say), contrary to 15.7. So $`p_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and therefore so is $`z`$, by (4). But then $`(C_1,Y)`$ is an odd wheel, since $`z,x_1,p_i`$ are $`Y`$-complete and $`v,p_n`$ are not (by (4)), contrary to $`G_7`$. So $`i=n`$, and hence $`p_n`$ is adjacent to both $`v,y`$. From the symmetry between $`x_0,x_1`$ it follows that $`p_1`$ is adjacent to both $`v,y`$. By (4), $`p_1,p_n`$ are not $`Y`$-complete. So in $`\overline{G}`$, the connected set $`Y\{p_1,p_n\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{x_0,x_1,v\}`$; $`x_0,x_1,v`$ all have unique neighbours in it, namely $`p_n,p_1,y`$ respectively; and these three vertices do not form a triangle since $`yp_1`$ is not an edge (of $`\overline{G}`$), contrary to 17.1. This proves (7).
(8) If $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`y`$ and adjacent to one of $`x_0,x_1`$ then the theorem holds.
For assume $`v`$ is nonadjacent to $`y`$ and adjacent to $`x_0`$ say. Now $`A\{x_1\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{z,x_0,v\}`$; it contains no reflection of this triangle, since $`x_0,x_1`$ have no common neighbour in $`A`$; and the unique neighbour of $`z`$ in this set is nonadjacent to both $`x_0,v`$. So by 17.1 it follows that there is a vertex in $`A`$ adjacent to both $`x_0,v`$. Also, $`Av`$ catches the triangle $`\{z,x_1,y\}`$. Suppose that $`A\{v\}`$ contains a reflection of this triangle; then there exist $`fA`$ adjacent to $`x_1,v`$ and not to $`y`$. Since $`fA`$ it follows that $`f`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_0`$; but then $`f\text{-}v\text{-}x_0\text{-}y\text{-}x_1\text{-}f`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. Hence by 17.1 there is a vertex in $`A`$ adjacent to both $`x_1,y`$. Consequently from (3), $`A`$ is the vertex set of a path $`f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k`$, where $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`x_0,v`$, and $`f_k`$ to $`x_1,y`$. Since $`f_1A`$ it follows that $`f_1`$ is not adjacent to $`x_1`$.

Now assume that $`f_1`$ is not the unique neighbour of $`v`$ in $`A`$. From (3), $`f_1`$ is the unique neighbour of $`x_0`$ in $`A`$. By (7), $`f_k`$ is not the unique neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`A`$, and so from (3) it is the unique neighbour of $`y`$ in $`A`$. In particular $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`f_1`$. Both $`x_0,z`$ have unique neighbours in $`A\{x_1\}=F`$ say, namely $`f_1,x_1`$ respectively. Now $`x_0,z`$ are both $`\{v,y\}`$-complete, and $`f_1,x_1`$ are not. Since $`Fx_1`$ is connected, this contradicts 17.3. So $`f_1`$ is the unique neighbour of $`v`$ in $`A`$. Suppose that $`f_k`$ is the unique neighbour of $`y`$ in $`A`$. Then both $`z,y`$ have unique neighbours in $`A\{v\}`$, namely $`v,f_k`$ respectively; and $`z,y`$ are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, and $`v,f_k`$ are not. Once again this contradicts 17.3. So $`f_k`$ is not the unique neighbour of $`y`$ in $`A`$, and therefore it is the unique neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`F`$.

Suppose that $`f_k`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Since $`f_k=p_n`$, it follows from (4) that $`z`$ is not $`Y`$-complete; and so $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete by (2), and an antipath between $`z,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be extended to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}f_k\text{-}z`$, which shares the vertices $`z,v,f_k`$ with the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ ($`=C_1`$ say), contrary to 15.7. So $`f_k`$ is not $`Y`$-complete and therefore not $`Y^{}`$-complete (and in particular, $`Y^{}`$ is nonempty).

Suppose that $`z`$ is not $`Y`$-complete; and therefore $`Y^{}\{z\}`$ is anticonnected, and $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. Choose $`h`$ with $`1h<k`$ minimum so that $`f_h`$ is adjacent to $`y`$ (this exists since $`f_k`$ is not the unique neighbour of $`y`$ in $`A`$). The path $`v\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_h\text{-}y`$ is even, since it can be completed to a hole via $`y\text{-}z\text{-}v`$, and therefore the path $`v\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_h\text{-}y\text{-}x_1`$ is odd (this is a path since $`f_k`$ is the unique neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`A`$); and the ends of this path are $`Y^{}\{z\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 13.6 it has length 3. So $`f_1`$ is adjacent to $`y`$ and $`v`$. If $`f_1`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, then an antipath between $`f_1,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}f_1`$, which shares the vertices $`v,x_1,f_1`$ with the hole $`C_1`$, contrary to 15.7; while if $`f_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete, then an antipath between $`z,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}f_1\text{-}z`$, again contrary to 15.7. This proves that $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete.

In the hole $`C_1`$, $`z,x_1`$ are $`Y`$-complete and $`v,f_k`$ are not; so since $`G_7`$, no other vertex of $`C_1`$ is $`Y`$-complete. By 2.10, $`Y`$ contains a leap or hat for $`C_1`$. From a hypothesis of the theorem, every vertex in $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A\{v\}`$, so there is no hat, and hence there exist nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2`$ in $`Y`$ so that $`y_1\text{-}v\text{-}f_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}f_k\text{-}y_2`$ is a path. Since both ends of this path are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, and no internal vertex is $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, this contradicts 13.6. This proves (8).
(9) There is no connected $`FA`$ containing neighbours of $`x_0,x_1,v`$ except $`A`$ itself.
For suppose that such a set $`F`$ exists with $`FA`$, and choose $`fAF`$ so that $`Af`$ is connected. From the minimality of $`A`$, there exists $`y^{}Y`$ nonadjacent to $`v`$ with no neighbour in $`Af`$, and therefore $`f`$ is the unique neighbour of $`y^{}`$ in $`A`$. If $`y^{}Y^{}`$, then $`v`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, and therefore by (2) there are two $`Y^{}`$-complete vertices in $`A`$, a contradiction. So $`y^{}=y`$, and therefore $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`v`$. Suppose that $`v`$ is not adjacent to $`f`$. Then both $`z,y`$ have unique neighbours in $`A\{v\}`$, namely $`v,f`$; $`z,y`$ are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, and $`v,f`$ are not; $`f\text{-}y\text{-}z\text{-}v`$ is a path; and $`x_0,x_1`$ both have neighbours in $`A`$, contrary to 17.3. So $`v`$ is adjacent to $`f`$. By (8) we may assume that $`v`$ is nonadjacent to both $`x_0,x_1`$. Since $`f`$ is not $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, we may assume from the symmetry that $`f`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_1`$. Now $`A\{v\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{z,y,x_1\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`A\{v\}`$ is $`v`$; the only neighbour of $`y`$ in $`A\{v\}`$ is $`f`$; $`v,f`$ are both nonadjacent to $`x_1`$; and so by 17.1, $`A\{v\}`$ contains a reflection of the triangle. Hence there exists $`f_1Af`$, adjacent to $`v,f,x_1`$ and not to $`y`$ (and therefore not to $`x_0`$). Since every path between $`x_0,x_1`$ with interior in $`A`$ has length $`4`$ it follows that $`x_0`$ is nonadjacent to $`f,f_1`$, and this restores the symmetry between $`x_0,x_1`$; and consequently by the same argument there exists $`f_0Af`$ adjacent to $`v,f,x_0`$ and not to $`y,x_1`$. Since $`z\text{-}x_0\text{-}f_0\text{-}f_1\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ is not an odd hole, $`f_0`$ is nonadjacent to $`f_1`$; but then $`x_0\text{-}f_0\text{-}f\text{-}f_1\text{-}x_1`$ violates (7). This proves (9).

From (7) and (9), it follows that there exists $`fA`$ such that $`Af`$ is connected, $`f`$ does not belong to $`C`$, and $`f`$ is the unique neighbour of $`v`$ in $`A`$.
(10) If $`v`$ is adjacent to one of $`x_0,x_1`$ then the theorem holds.
For let $`v`$ be adjacent to $`x_0`$ say. Suppose first that $`x_0`$ is not adjacent to $`f`$. Then $`A\{x_1\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{z,v,x_0\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`A\{x_1\}`$ is $`x_1`$; the only neighbour of $`v`$ in $`A\{x_1\}`$ is $`f`$; $`x_1,f`$ are both nonadjacent to $`x_0`$; and $`A\{x_1\}`$ contains no reflection of the triangle since that would give a 6-antihole with 3 vertices in common with $`C`$, contradicting 17.1. So $`x_0`$ is adjacent to $`f`$, and therefore $`x_1`$ is nonadjacent to both $`v,f`$. By (8) we may assume that $`v`$ is adjacent to $`y`$, and therefore not $`Y^{}`$-complete. By (2) $`z`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and $`(C,Y^{})`$ is a wheel. Let $`v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}x_1`$ be a path between $`v,x_1`$ with interior in $`A`$ (so $`f=q_1`$) and let $`C_1`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$. From (9), $`A=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_k\}`$. Since $`q_k=p_n`$ and $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete, it follows from (4) that $`q_k`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. Since $`(C_1,Y)`$ is not an odd wheel, it follows that $`(C_1,Y)`$ is not a wheel, and so $`z,x_1`$ are the only $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C_1`$, by 2.3. By 2.10, $`Y`$ contains a leap or hat for $`C_1`$. But $`y`$ is adjacent to $`v`$, and all other vertices of $`Y`$ have at least two neighbours in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, which is a subset of $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_k\}`$, a contradiction. This proves (10).

We may therefore assume that $`v`$ is nonadjacent to both $`x_0,x_1`$. From (9) one of $`x_0,x_1`$ has a unique neighbour in $`A`$, and from the symmetry we may assume it is $`x_1`$. Let its neighbour be $`f_1`$. By (7) and (9), $`v`$ has no neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and in particular $`ff_1`$. Let $`Q`$ be a path in $`A`$ between $`f,f_1`$, say $`f=q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k=f_1`$, so $`z\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ is a hole ($`C_1`$ say).
(11) $`z`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, and $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and nonadjacent to $`y`$.
For assume $`z`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. So $`z,x_1`$ both have unique neighbours in $`A\{v\}`$, namely $`v,f_1`$. By (4), $`f_1`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. So $`z,x_1`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and $`v,f_1`$ are not. By 17.3, it follows that some vertex in $`Y`$ has no neighbour in $`A`$. But $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`A`$ by (1), and so some vertex in $`Y^{}`$ has no neighbour in $`A`$. In particular, there is no $`Y^{}`$-complete vertex in $`A`$, and so by (2), $`v`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete and nonadjacent to $`y`$. From 17.3 applied to the path $`v\text{-}z\text{-}x_1\text{-}f`$ and the anticonnected set $`\{y\}`$, it follows that $`y`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$. Since $`(C_1,Y)`$ is not an odd wheel, it follows from 2.10 that $`Y`$ contains a leap or a hat for $`C_1`$. Since all members of $`Y^{}`$ are adjacent to $`v`$ and $`y`$ is adjacent to $`f_1`$, there is no hat, and the leap must use $`y`$; so we may assume $`y,y^{}`$ is a leap for some $`y^{}Y^{}`$. Hence $`y\text{-}f_1\text{-}Q\text{-}f\text{-}v\text{-}y^{}`$ is a path. Since this path has odd length $`5`$, and its ends are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, this contradicts 13.6. So $`z`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete. The claim follows from (2). This proves (11).
(12) $`y`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{k1}`$.
For suppose not, and choose $`i`$ with $`1ik`$ minimum so that $`y`$ is adjacent to $`q_i`$. From the hole $`z\text{-}v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_i\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ it follows that $`i`$ is odd. So by (10) we may assume that $`v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_i\text{-}y\text{-}x_1`$ is an odd path. Its ends are $`Y^{}\{z\}`$-complete, its internal vertices are not, and $`Y^{}\{z\}`$ is anticonnected by (11); so it has length 3 by 13.6, that is, $`i=k`$ and $`y`$ is adjacent to $`f`$. If $`f`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, an antipath between $`f,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}f`$, sharing the vertices $`v,x_1,f`$ with $`C_1`$, contrary to 15.7. So $`f`$ is $`Y^{}`$-complete. Since $`z`$ is not, an antipath between $`z,y`$ with interior in $`Y^{}`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`y\text{-}v\text{-}x_1\text{-}f\text{-}z`$, again contrary to 15.7. This proves (12).

To conclude, $`A\{v\}`$ catches $`\{y,z,x_1\}`$, and so by 17.1, $`y`$ is adjacent to $`f_1=q_k`$. Suppose that $`x_0`$ is adjacent to one of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k`$. Then $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_k\}`$ from the minimality of $`A`$, and so the neighbours of $`y`$ in $`C`$ are precisely $`x_0,z,x_1,q_k=p_n`$, contrary to 2.3 applied to $`C`$ and $`y`$. So $`x_0`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k`$; but then $`v\text{-}q_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}q_k\text{-}y\text{-}x_0`$ is an odd path of length $`5`$, its ends are $`Y^{}\{z\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 13.6. This proves 19.1.

## 20 Wheel systems

We continue with the proof that there is no wheel in a recalcitrant graph. The remainder of the argument breaks into two parts. First, we invent an object called a “$`Y`$-diamond wheel system”, where $`Y`$ is an anticonnected subset of $`V(G)`$; and in this section we prove that if $`G`$ contains a $`Y`$-diamond, then it also contains a wheel $`(C,Y)`$ (for the same set $`Y`$). And we prove the same thing for another special kind of wheel system, a “$`Y`$-square”. The second half of the argument, in the next few sections, is roughly as follows. Suppose there is a wheel, and choose one, say $`(C,Y^{})`$, with $`Y^{}`$ maximal. One can argue that, since $`G`$ has no skew partition, there is a vertex $`y`$ that could be added to $`Y^{}`$, forming a new anticonnected set $`Y`$ say, so that there are precisely two $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$ and they are consecutive; and moreover there is a “tail”, a path from $`y`$ to a vertex of $`C`$ that is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, with certain special properties. We grow $`C`$ into what we call a “wheel system” relative to $`Y`$, and make it maximal, and analyze how the remainder of $`G`$ attaches to this wheel system. Since there is no skew partition in $`G`$, we can show that $`G`$ contains a $`Y`$-diamond or $`Y`$-square. But therefore $`G`$ also contains a wheel with hub $`Y`$, contrary to the maximality of $`Y_0`$.

Let $`G`$ be a graph. A frame in $`G`$ is a pair $`(z,A_0)`$, where $`zV(G)`$, and $`A_0`$ is a nonnull connected subset of $`V(G)z`$, containing no neighbours of $`z`$. With respect to a given frame $`(z,A_0)`$, a wheel system in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$ is a sequence $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ of distinct vertices of $`G(A_0\{z\})`$, satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`A_0`$ contains neighbours of $`x_0`$ and of $`x_1`$, and no vertex in $`A_0`$ is $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete.
2. For $`2it`$, there is a connected subset of $`V(G)`$ including $`A_0`$, containing a neighbour of $`x_i`$, containing no neighbour of $`z`$, and containing no $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1}\}`$-complete vertex.
3. For $`1it`$, $`x_i`$ is not $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1}\}`$-complete.
4. $`z`$ is adjacent to all of $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$.

Note that this definition is symmetric between $`x_0,x_1`$, so $`x_1,x_0,x_2,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is another wheel system. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a wheel system of height $`t`$. For $`1it`$ we define $`X_i=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_i\}`$, and we define $`A_i`$ to be the maximal connected subset of $`V(G)`$ that includes $`A_0`$, contains no neighbour of $`z`$, and contains no $`X_i`$-complete vertex. So for each $`i`$, $`A_{i1}A_i`$. Note that condition 2 above just says that $`x_i`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{i1}`$.

We need three special kinds of wheel systems. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a wheel system, and define $`X_i,A_i`$ as above. Let $`YV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, such that $`Y`$ is disjoint from $`\{z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$, and $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}`$ are all $`Y`$-complete and $`x_t`$ is not. We say $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a

* $`Y`$-diamond if $`t3`$, $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t2}`$-complete, and $`x_t`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$
* $`Y`$-square if $`t3`$, $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$, $`x_t`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, and there is a vertex in $`A_{t1}`$ adjacent to $`x_t`$ with a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$
* $`Y`$-square-diamond if $`t4`$, $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t2}`$-complete, $`x_{t1}`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete, $`x_t`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$, $`x_{t1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$, and there is a vertex in $`A_{t2}`$ adjacent to both $`x_t,x_{t1}`$ with a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$.

(Note that $`Y`$-square-diamonds are $`Y`$-diamonds.)

The main result of this section is the following.

###### 20.1

Let $`G_7`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame, and let $`YV(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ be nonempty and anticonnected. Suppose that there is either a $`Y`$-diamond, a $`Y`$-square, or a $`Y`$-square-diamond in $`G`$. Then $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`G`$ contains a wheel $`(C,Y)`$.

Proof of 20.1, assuming 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, and 20.5.
(1) If $`Y_1V(G)`$ is anticonnected with $`YY_1`$, and there is a $`Y_1`$-square-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t+1`$, we may assume that there is an anticonnected $`Y_2`$ with $`Y_1Y_2V(G)`$ such that there is a $`Y_2`$-square or $`Y_2`$-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t`$.
We proceed by induction on $`t`$. By 20.2 it follows that $`t4`$, and from 20.5, we may assume that there is an anticonnected superset $`Y_2`$ of $`Y_1`$ such that $`G`$ contains a $`Y_2`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$. From the inductive hypothesis, we may assume there is an anticonnected superset $`Y_3`$ of $`Y_2`$ such that $`G`$ contains a $`Y_3`$-diamond or $`Y_3`$-square of height $`t1`$; but then the claim holds. This proves (1).

From (1) we may assume that there is an anticonnected superset $`Y_1`$ of $`Y`$ such that for some $`t`$, $`G`$ contains a $`Y_1`$-square or $`Y_1`$-diamond, of height $`t`$ say. Choose $`t`$ minimum. If $`t=3`$ the theorem follows from 20.2, so we may assume $`t4`$. From (1) there is no anticonnected superset $`Y_2`$ of $`Y_1`$ such that $`G`$ contains a $`Y_2`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$; and the result follows from 20.3 and 20.4. This proves 20.1.

In 20.1 we do not require that $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete. This is included in the statement of 20.1 merely because in the inductive proof of 20.1, it is helpful to be proving the stronger statement. When we apply the result later, we know that $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete anyway.

First we show:

###### 20.2

Let $`G_7`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame, and let $`YV(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ be nonempty and anticonnected. There is no $`Y`$-square of height $`3`$ or $`Y`$-square-diamond of height $`4`$ in $`G`$; and if $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_3`$ is a $`Y`$-diamond of height $`3`$, then $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`G`$ contains a wheel $`(C,Y\{x_3\})`$.

Proof. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a wheel system in $`G`$, and let $`X_i,A_i`$ be defined as before. Suppose first that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a $`Y`$-square of height 3. So $`t=3`$, $`x_3`$ is adjacent to $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$ has no neighbour in $`A_1`$, and there is a vertex $`q`$ in $`A_2`$ adjacent to $`x_3`$ with a neighbour in $`A_1`$. From the maximality of $`A_1`$ it follows that $`q`$ is $`X_1`$-complete, and therefore nonadjacent to $`x_2`$ (since it belongs to $`A_2`$ and so is not $`X_2`$-complete). Let $`Q`$ be a path from $`q`$ to $`x_2`$ with interior in $`A_1`$; so $`Q`$ has length $`2`$. But $`Q`$ is even since it can be completed to a hole via $`x_2\text{-}x_3\text{-}q`$, and so $`q\text{-}Q\text{-}x_2\text{-}z`$ is an odd path; its ends are $`X_1`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not. By 13.6 it has length 3, and there is an antipath with interior in $`X_1`$, joining its middle vertices ($`x_2`$ and $`r`$ say). This antipath can be completed via $`r\text{-}z\text{-}q\text{-}x_2`$ to an antihole of length $`6`$, containing $`x_0,x_1`$ and $`z`$. But let $`P`$ be a path from $`x_0`$ to $`x_1`$ with interior in $`A_0`$; then it has length $`3`$ since $`A_0`$ contains no vertex adjacent to both $`x_0,x_1`$, and hence $`z\text{-}x_0\text{-}P\text{-}x_1\text{-}z`$ is a hole of length $`6`$ containing $`x_0,x_1`$ and $`z`$. But this contradicts 15.7, as required.

Now suppose $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a $`Y`$-square-diamond of height 4. So $`t=4`$, $`x_4`$ is $`X_2`$-complete, $`x_3`$ is not $`X_1`$-complete, $`x_4`$ has no neighbour in $`A_1`$, $`x_3`$ has a neighbour in $`A_1`$, and there is a vertex $`q`$ in $`A_2`$ adjacent to both $`x_4,x_3`$ with a neighbour in $`A_1`$. As before $`q`$ is $`X_1`$-complete, and therefore not adjacent to $`x_2`$; let $`Q`$ be a path from $`q`$ to $`x_2`$ with interior in $`A_1`$. The proof is completed exactly as in the previous paragraph.

So now we may assume that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a $`Y`$-diamond of height 3. So $`t=3`$, $`x_3`$ is $`X_1`$-complete (and therefore nonadjacent to $`x_2`$), and $`x_3`$ has a neighbour in $`A_1`$. But then from 19.1 with $`A=A_1`$,$`v=x_1`$ and anticonnected set $`Y\{x_3\}`$, the result follows. This proves 20.2.

We remark that the pieces of this jigsaw do not seem to fit well together. There is some annoying wastage in 20.2; we produce a wheel with hub $`Y\{x_3\}`$, and all we use in proving 20.1 is that there is a wheel with hub $`Y`$. Perhaps there is a better way to organize it, but so far it eludes us.

###### 20.3

Let $`G_7`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame, and let $`YV(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ be nonempty and anticonnected. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a $`Y`$-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t4`$. Suppose that there is no anticonnected set $`Y^{}`$ with $`YY^{}V(G)`$ such that either:

* there is a $`Y^{}`$-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t`$.

Then $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete and $`G`$ contains a wheel $`(C,Y)`$.

Proof. Assume that either $`z`$ is not $`Y`$-complete or $`G`$ contains no wheel $`(C,Y)`$. Define $`X_i,A_i`$ as usual. So $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t2}`$-complete, and $`x_t`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, and $`Y`$ is complete to $`X_{t1}`$ and not to $`x_t`$.
(1) Not both $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$.
For suppose they do. If $`x_{t1}`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`Y\{x_t\}`$-diamond of height $`t1`$, while if $`x_{t1}`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_t$$

is a $`Y`$-diamond of height $`t1`$, in both cases a contradiction. This proves (1).
(2) There is a vertex $`q`$ in $`A_{t2}`$ adjacent to both $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$, and a path $`R`$ in $`A_{t2}`$ from $`q`$ to $`A_{t3}`$ so that not both $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$.
For let $`F`$ be a minimal connected subgraph of $`A_{t2}`$ including $`A_{t3}`$ and containing neighbours of both $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$. If $`x_t,x_{t1}`$ have a common neighbour in $`F`$, then the claim is satisfied (from the minimality of $`F`$), so we assume not. Let $`P`$ be a path between $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`F`$, say $`x_t\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_{t1}`$. Hence $`P`$ has length $`>2`$, and the hole $`z\text{-}x_1\text{-}P\text{-}x_2\text{-}z`$ (= $`C`$ say) it follows that $`P`$ is even. The only $`X_{t2}`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ are $`z`$ and $`x_t`$, so by 2.10, $`X_{t2}`$ contains a leap or a hat for $`C`$. Suppose it contains a leap; then there are nonadjacent $`x_i,x_jX_{t2}`$ so that $`x_i\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_j`$ is an odd path. Since $`x_i,x_j`$ are $`Y\{x_t\}`$-complete, it follows from 13.6 that this path contains another $`Y\{x_t\}`$-complete vertex, which must be $`p_1`$ since no others are adjacent to $`x_t`$. Its ends are also $`Y\{x_t,z\}`$-complete, and no internal vertex is $`Y\{x_t,z\}`$-complete, so by 13.6, $`Y\{x_t,z\}`$ is not anticonnected, that is, $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete. But then let $`C_1`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}x_i\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}z`$; then $`(C_1,Y)`$ is a wheel, a contradiction.

So $`X_{t2}`$ contains a hat for $`C`$; that is, there exists $`x_iX_{t2}`$ with no neighbours in $`C`$ except $`x_t,z`$. Hence the path $`x_i\text{-}x_t\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_{t1}`$ is odd and has length $`5`$, and its ends are $`Y\{z\}`$-complete, and no internal vertex is $`Y\{z\}`$-complete, so by 13.6, $`z`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Let $`S`$ be a path between $`x_i`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`F`$. Then $`V(SP)\{x_i,x_t\}`$ ( = $`F^{}`$ say) is connected and catches the triangle $`\{z,x_i,x_t\}`$. The only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F^{}`$ is $`x_{t1}`$, which is nonadjacent to both $`x_i,x_t`$. If $`F^{}`$ contains a reflection of the triangle, there is an antihole of length 6 containing $`z,x_{t1},x_t`$, which is impossible by 15.7 since these three vertices belong to $`C`$. So by 17.1, there is a vertex in $`F^{}`$ adjacent to both $`x_i,x_t`$. Since $`x_i`$ has no neighbour in $`Px_t`$, it follows that both $`x_t,x_{t1}`$ have neighbours in the interior of $`S`$, and so there is a path $`P^{}`$ between $`x_t,x_{t1}`$ with $`P^{}x_t`$ a subpath of $`Sx_i`$. As before $`P^{}`$ has length $`4`$, and so $`S`$ has length $`4`$, and $`P^{},S`$ both have even length since they can be completed to holes through $`z`$. Since the $`X_{t2}`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbours in the interior of $`P^{}`$, from 13.7 (applied to $`P^{}`$ with anticonnected sets $`Y`$ and $`X_{t2}`$) it follows that there is a $`Y`$-complete edge in $`P^{}`$, and since $`x_t`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, there is therefore one in $`S`$. But since the edges $`zx_{t1},zx_i`$ are also $`Y`$-complete, we deduce that there are at least three $`Y`$-complete edges in the hole $`z\text{-}x_i\text{-}S\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}z`$, and so that hole is the rim of a wheel with hub $`Y`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).

Choose $`q,R`$ as in (2) with $`R`$ minimal, and let $`R`$ be $`r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_n`$, where $`r_1=q`$ and $`r_n`$ is the only vertex of $`R`$ in $`A_{t3}`$ .
(3) $`x_{t1}`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$.
For assume not. Since $`x_{t1}`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$ it follows that $`qA_{t3}`$, and so $`R`$ has length $`>0`$. Suppose first that every antipath between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`q`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is odd, and let $`Q`$ be such an antipath. Since all internal vertices of $`Q`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$, it follows from 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ that one end of $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$. By hypothesis, $`x_{t1}`$ does not, so $`q`$ does. From the maximality of $`A_{t3}`$ it follows that $`q`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete; and since $`qA_{t2}`$ and is therefore not $`X_{t2}`$-complete, $`q`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t2}`$. Now by assumption, every every antipath between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`q`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is odd, and so $`x_{t2}`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$. But then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`Y\{x_t\}`$-square of height $`t1`$, a contradiction. So we may assume some antipath $`Q`$ between between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`q`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is even.

From (2), not both $`x_t,x_{t1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$. Suppose that $`x_{t1}`$ has such a neighbour, and so $`x_t`$ does not. Since by assumption $`x_{t1}`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, it follows that all neighbours of $`x_{t1}`$ in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$ lie in the interior of $`R`$, and in particular $`R`$ has length $`2`$. The antipath $`x_t\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}Q\text{-}q`$ is odd, and its ends have no neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t3}\{r_3,\mathrm{},r_n\}`$. Since $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}\{r_3,\mathrm{},r_n\}`$, it follows from 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ that some internal vertex of this antipath has no neighbours in $`A_{t3}\{r_3,\mathrm{},r_n\}`$. But all internal vertices of $`Q`$ lie in $`X_{t2}`$ and therefore have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$; so $`x_{t1}`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t3}\{r_3,\mathrm{},r_n\}`$. Hence $`r_2`$ is its only neighbour in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$. Suppose that every antipath between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`r_2`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is odd, and let $`Q^{}`$ be such an antipath. All internal vertices of $`Q^{}`$ have neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t3}`$, and $`z`$ is complete to the interior of $`Q^{}`$ and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$; so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that $`r_2`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$. From the maximality of $`A_{t3}`$, $`r`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, and therefore not adjacent to $`x_2`$. Since by assumption every antipath between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`r_2`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is odd, it follows that $`x_{t1}`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t2}`$. But then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`Y\{x_t\}`$-square of height $`t1`$, a contradiction. So some antipath $`Q^{}`$ between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`r_2`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$ is even. Hence the antipath $`x_{t1}\text{-}Q^{}\text{-}r_2\text{-}z`$ is odd. All its internal vertices have neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t3}\{r_3,\mathrm{},r_n\}`$ and its ends do not, so by 13.6 this antipath has length 3, that is, $`Q^{}`$ has length 2. Let $`x_i`$ be its middle vertex. Then the connected set $`A_{t3}V(R\{r_1,r_2\})\{x_i,x_t,z\}`$ ( $`=F`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{r_1,r_2,x_{t1}\}`$; the only neighbours of $`r_1`$ in $`F`$ are $`x_t`$ and possibly $`x_i`$; the neighbours of $`r_2`$ in $`F`$ lie in $`A_{t3}\{r_3\}`$; and the only neighbour of $`x_{t1}`$ in $`F`$ is $`z`$. This contradicts 17.1, since $`z`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t3}\{r_3\}`$.

So $`x_{t1}`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$. Now the antipath $`z\text{-}q\text{-}Q\text{-}x_{t1}`$ is odd, and all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$, and its ends do not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, that is, $`Q`$ has length 2 (let its middle vertex be $`x_i`$); and there is an odd path $`P`$ between $`q,x_i`$ with interior in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$. Let $`C`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}q\text{-}P\text{-}x_i\text{-}z`$; then $`C`$ has length $`6`$. By 15.7 there is no antihole of length $`6`$ containing $`q,x_i,x_{t1}`$. If $`q`$ is not $`Y`$-complete then an antipath between $`q,x_t`$ with interior in $`Y`$ can be completed to such an antihole via $`x_t\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_i\text{-}q`$, so $`q`$ is $`Y`$-complete; and if $`z`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, an antipath between $`z`$ and $`x_t`$ with interior in $`Y`$ can be extended to such an antihole, via $`x_t\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_i\text{-}q\text{-}z`$. So $`z`$ is also $`Y`$-complete. Now both $`x_i,q`$ are $`Y\{x_t\}`$-complete, and therefore by 2.2 applied to $`P`$, it follows that $`P`$ contains a $`Y\{x_t\}`$-complete edge. Hence the hole $`C`$ contains at least three $`Y`$-complete edges, a contradiction. This proves (3).

From (3) and the choice of $`R`$ it follows that $`x_t`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`q`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$. Then $`z\text{-}q\text{-}Q\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_t`$ is an antipath of length $`4`$, and its ends have no neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t3}V(Rq)`$, and its internal vertices do, so by 13.6 it has even length, that is, $`Q`$ is even. The antipath $`x_t\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}Q\text{-}q`$ is therefore odd, and its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$, so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that one of its ends, and hence $`q`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$. From the maximality of $`A_{t3}`$ it follows that $`q`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete and therefore nonadjacent to $`x_{t2}`$. If $`x_{t1}`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_t$$

is a $`Y`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$; while if $`x_{t1}`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`Y\{x_t\}`$-diamond of height $`t1`$, in both cases a contradiction. This proves 20.3.

###### 20.4

Let $`G_7`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame, and let $`YV(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ be nonempty and anticonnected. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ be a $`Y`$-square in $`G`$ of height $`t4`$. Then there is an anticonnected set $`Y^{}`$ with $`YY^{}V(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ such that either:

* there is a $`Y^{}`$-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t`$.

Proof. Assume that no such $`Y^{}`$ exists. Define $`X_i,A_i`$ as usual. So $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$, $`x_t`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, there is a vertex $`q`$ in $`A_{t1}`$ adjacent to $`x_t`$ with a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, and $`Y`$ is complete to $`X_{t1}`$ and not to $`x_t`$. From the maximality of $`A_{t2}`$ it follows that $`q`$ is $`X_{t2}`$-complete. Since $`qA_{t1}`$, it is not $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and so $`q`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t1}`$.
(1) $`x_{t1}`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$.
For suppose not. Let $`R`$ be a path between $`q`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`A_{t2}`$. Then $`R`$ has length $`2`$, and from the hole $`q\text{-}R\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_t\text{-}q`$ it follows that $`R`$ has even length. So the path $`q\text{-}R\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}z`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X_{t2}`$-complete, and its interior vertices are not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, that is, $`R`$ has length 2. Let its middle vertex be $`r`$. Since $`x_{t1}`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$, it follows that $`rA_{t2}A_{t3}`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`r`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$. Since $`r\text{-}Q\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}q\text{-}z\text{-}r`$ is an antihole, it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. All its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and one end $`x_{t1}`$ does not, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$. By 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that $`r`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$. Hence $`r`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, and nonadjacent to $`x_{t2}`$. Since $`z\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}r\text{-}q\text{-}x_{t2}\text{-}z`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`x_{t2}`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$. But then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`\{q\}`$-square of height $`t1`$, and yet $`z`$ is not $`\{q\}`$-complete, a contradiction. This proves (1).
(2) $`q`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$.
For suppose not. Let $`S`$ be an antipath between $`x_t`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with $`V(S)X_t`$, that is, with interior in $`X_{t2}`$. Then $`x_t\text{-}S\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}q`$ is an antipath with length $`3`$; by (1), all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and its ends do not, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$; so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ it follows that $`S`$ has odd length. But then $`x_t\text{-}S\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}q\text{-}z`$ has odd length $`5`$, and its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t2}`$ and its ends do not, contrary to 13.6 applied in $`\overline{G}`$. This proves (2).

If $`x_{t1}`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`\{q\}`$-diamond of height $`t1`$, and yet $`z`$ is not $`\{q\}`$-complete, a contradiction. So $`x_{t1}`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete. It follows from (2) that if $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_{t2},x_t$$

is a $`Y`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$, while if $`x_t`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_t$$

is a $`Y`$-square of height $`t1`$, in either case a contradiction. This proves 20.4.

###### 20.5

Let $`G_7`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame, and let $`YV(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ be nonempty and anticonnected. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a $`Y`$-square-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t+15`$. Then there is a nonempty anticonnected set $`Y^{}`$ with $`Y^{}V(G)(A_0\{z\})`$ such that either $`YY^{}`$ or $`z`$ is not $`Y^{}`$-complete, and such that either:

* there is a $`Y^{}`$-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square in $`G`$ of height $`t1`$, or
* there is a $`Y^{}`$-square-diamond in $`G`$ of height $`t`$.

Proof. Suppose that no such $`Y^{}`$ exists. Let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a $`Y`$-square-diamond in $`G`$, and define $`X_i,A_i`$ as usual. So $`x_{t+1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, $`x_t`$ is not $`X_{t2}`$-complete, $`x_{t+1}`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, $`x_t`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, there is a vertex $`q`$ in $`A_{t1}`$ adjacent to both $`x_{t+1},x_t`$ with a neighbour in $`A_{t2}`$, and $`Y`$ is complete to $`X_t`$ and not to $`x_{t+1}`$. From the maximality of $`A_{t2}`$ it follows that $`q`$ is $`X_{t2}`$-complete, and therefore nonadjacent to $`x_{t1}`$.

Choose a path $`v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_s`$ with $`s`$ minimum such that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_sA_{t2}`$, and $`v_1`$ is adjacent to $`q`$, and $`v_sA_{t3}`$. (If $`q`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$ then $`s=1`$.) Let $`R`$ be a path between $`q`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`A_{t2}`$, and if possible with interior in $`A_{t3}\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_s\}`$. Then $`R`$ has length $`2`$, and from the hole $`q\text{-}R\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}q`$ it follows that $`R`$ has even length. So the path $`q\text{-}R\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}z`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X_{t2}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6 it has length 3, that is, $`R`$ has length 2. Let its middle vertex be $`r`$.
(1) $`x_{t1}`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$.
For suppose not. It follows that $`rA_{t2}A_{t3}`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`r`$ and $`x_{t1}`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$. Since $`r\text{-}Q\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}q\text{-}z\text{-}r`$ is an antihole, it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. All its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and one end $`x_{t1}`$ does not, and $`z`$ is complete to its interior and anticomplete to $`A_{t3}`$. By 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that $`r`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$. Hence $`r`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, and nonadjacent to $`x_{t2}`$. Since $`z\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}r\text{-}q\text{-}x_{t2}\text{-}z`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`x_{t2}`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$. But then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`\{q\}`$-square of height $`t1`$, and yet $`z`$ is not $`\{q\}`$-complete, a contradiction. This proves (1).

From (1) it follows that it is possible to choose $`R`$ with interior in $`A_{t3}\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_s\}`$, and therefore we have done so.
(2) $`q`$ has neighbours in $`A_{t3}`$, and therefore $`rA_{t3}`$.
For suppose it does not. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`x_{t1}`$ and $`r`$ with interior in $`X_{t2}`$. From the antihole $`x_{t1}\text{-}Q\text{-}r\text{-}z\text{-}q\text{-}x_{t1}`$ it follows that $`Q`$ is odd. Hence the antipath $`q\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}Q\text{-}r\text{-}x_{t+1}`$ is odd with length $`5`$; and its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t3}\{v_2,\mathrm{},v_s\}`$, and its ends do not, contrary to 13.6 applied in $`\overline{G}`$. This proves (2).
(3) $`x_{t1}`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete.
For if it is, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}$$

is a $`\{q\}`$-diamond of height $`t1`$, and yet $`z`$ is not $`\{q\}`$-complete, a contradiction. This proves (3).
(4) $`x_t`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$.
For suppose $`x_t`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t3}`$. If $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete then since it is not $`X_{t2}`$-complete, it is nonadjacent to $`x_{t2}`$, and therefore

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t2},x_t$$

is a $`Y\{x_{t+1}\}`$-diamond of height $`t1`$; while if $`x_t`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_t,x_{t+1}$$

is a $`Y`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$, in either case a contradiction. This proves (4).

In particular, $`x_t`$ is not adjacent to $`r`$. Since $`z\text{-}x_t\text{-}q\text{-}r\text{-}x_{t1}\text{-}z`$ is not an odd hole it follows that $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t1}`$. If $`x_t`$ is $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_{t2},x_t$$

is a $`Y\{x_{t+1}\}`$-square-diamond of height $`t`$; while if $`x_t`$ is not $`X_{t3}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t3},x_{t1},x_t$$

is a $`Y\{x_{t+1}\}`$-square of height $`t1`$, in either case a contradiction. This proves 20.5.

## 21 Finding a wheel system

In this section we apply the results of the previous two sections to prove a powerful result about wheel systems that will be the engine behind almost all the remainder of the paper. First we need a lemma.

###### 21.1

Let $`G_7`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ be a path in $`G(XY)`$ of length $`4`$, such that $`p_1,p_n`$ are $`X`$-complete and $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$ are not. Suppose that either:

1. $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ are $`Y`$-complete, or
2. there exists $`i`$ with $`1in3`$ such that $`p_i,p_{i+1},p_{i+2},p_{i+3}`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, or
3. there exists $`i`$ with $`1in3`$ such that $`p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$ are $`Y`$-complete and $`p_i,p_{i+3}`$ are not.

Then there is a wheel in $`G`$ with hub $`Y`$.

Proof. In the second and third case let $`i`$ be as given, and in the first case let $`i=1`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath joining $`p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$ with interior in $`X`$. Since $`1<i+1,i+2<n`$, and $`n5`$, and $`p_1,p_n`$ are both complete to the interior of $`Q`$, it follows from 15.4 that $`Q`$ has length 2, that is, there exists $`xX`$ nonadjacent to both $`p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$. Choose $`h`$ with $`1hi`$ maximum so that $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_h`$, and choose $`j`$ with $`i+3jn`$ minimum so that $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_j`$. Then $`x\text{-}p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j\text{-}x`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, say $`C`$, and $`x,p_i,p_{i+1},p_{i+2},p_{i+3}`$ are all vertices of it, and $`x,p_{i+1},p_{i+2}`$ are $`Y`$-complete. In the first case $`xp_1,p_1p_2,p_2p_3`$ are all $`Y`$-complete edges of the hole, so $`(C,Y)`$ is a wheel. In the second case, the three edges of $`p_i\text{-}p_{i+1}\text{-}p_{i+2}\text{-}p_{i+3}`$ are all $`Y`$-complete edges of $`C`$, so again $`(C,Y)`$ is a wheel. In the third case, 2.3 implies that $`(C,Y)`$ is a wheel (and in this case it is in fact an odd wheel, a contradiction). This proves 21.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a nonempty anticonnected subset of $`V(G)`$, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame with $`A_0\{z\}`$ disjoint from $`Y`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a wheel system with respect to this frame. We say $`Y`$ is a hub for the wheel system if $`t1`$, $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ are all $`Y`$-complete and $`x_{t+1}`$ is not.

The main result of this section is the following. (Now we need to use that there are no psuedowheels, so we are back in $`_8`$).

###### 21.2

Let $`G_8`$, let $`YV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame with $`Y(A_0\{z\})=\mathrm{}`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a wheel system with hub $`Y`$, and with $`t2`$. Define $`X_i,A_i`$ as usual. Then either

* $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, or
* some member of $`Y`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_t`$, or
* there are $`2`$ members of $`Y`$ that are nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and have no neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, or
* there is a wheel in $`G`$ with hub $`Y`$.

Proof. We may assume that $`x_{t+1}`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$.
(1) There do not exist $`x_i,x_jX_t`$ joined by an odd path $`x_i\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}P\text{-}x_j`$ such that $`x_i,x_jX_t`$ and $`P`$ has interior in $`A_t`$.
For assume such a path exists, and let $`P`$ have vertices $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_j`$. There is an even path $`S`$ between $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ with interior in $`A_{t1}`$. Since $`x_i\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}P\text{-}x_j\text{-}S\text{-}x_i`$ is not an odd hole, and $`x_{t+1}`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t1}`$, it follows that $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}A_{t1}`$ is connected. Since $`p_1A_{t1}`$, there exists $`k`$ such that $`p_kA_{t1}`$ and $`p_k`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$; and since $`p_k`$ is not adjacent to $`z`$, it follows from the maximality of $`A_{t1}`$ that $`p_k`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete. Since at least one of $`x_i,x_j`$ is in $`X_{t1}`$, it follows that $`k=n`$ and $`i=t`$. But $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,x_j\}A_{t1}`$ ($`=F`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{z,x_{t+1},x_t\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`x_j`$; the only neighbour of $`x_{t+1}`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_1`$; and $`x_j,p_1`$ are nonadjacent, and are both nonadjacent to $`x_t`$, contrary to 17.1. This proves (1).

Since $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_t`$ and none in $`A_{t1}`$, there is a path from $`x_t`$ to $`A_{t1}`$ with interior in $`A_tA_{t1}`$. Hence there is a path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ such that $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_mA_tA_{t1}`$ and $`p_m`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, and $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m1}`$ have no neighbours in $`A_{t1}`$. (Hence $`m1`$, and $`p_m`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete.) Choose such a path so that if possible, every member of $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$.
(2) We may assume that one of $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is nonadjacent to both $`x_{t+1},p_1`$.
For certainly there is an antipath $`Q`$ joining $`x_{t+1},p_1`$ with interior in $`X_t`$, since $`x_{t+1},p_1`$ are not $`X_t`$-complete. Suppose that $`Q`$ is odd. Every vertex of the interior of $`Q`$ has neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t1}`$, and $`x_{t+1}`$ does not, and $`z`$ is complete to the interior of $`Q`$ and anticomplete to $`A_{t1}`$; so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$ it follows that $`p_1`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$. Hence $`m=1`$, and $`p_1`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and therefore not adjacent to $`x_t`$. If $`x_t`$ is also nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ then the claim holds, and if $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}$$

is a $`Y`$-square, and the theorem holds by 20.1.

Now assume that $`Q`$ is even. The antipath $`z\text{-}p_1\text{-}Q\text{-}x_{t+1}`$ is therefore odd and has length $`3`$; all its internal vertices have neighbours in the connected set $`A_{t1}\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$, and its ends do not. So it has length 3, by 13.6 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, and hence $`Q`$ has length 2. This proves (2).
(3) We may assume that every vertex in $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$.
For suppose some $`yY`$ has no such neighbour. If $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_t`$ then the theorem holds, so we assume it does. Consequently there is a connected subset $`F`$ of $`A_t`$ including $`A_{t1}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$ which contains a neighbour of $`y`$, and we may choose $`F`$ minimal with this property. Since $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$, it follows from the minimality of $`F`$ that $`y`$ has a unique neighbour in $`F`$, say $`f`$, and therefore $`fA_tA_{t1}`$. There is a path $`R`$ between $`y`$ and $`x_{t+1}`$ with interior in $`F`$, and therefore $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}R\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ is a hole ($`C`$ say), and so $`R`$ has even length. Suppose it has length $`4`$. The only $`X_t`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ are $`z,y`$, so by 2.10, $`X_t`$ contains a hat or leap. By (1) there is no leap, so there exists $`xX_t`$ with no neighbours in $`C`$ except $`y,z`$. But $`F\{x_{t+1}\}`$ catches the triangle $`\{x,y,z\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F\{x_{t+1}\}`$ is $`x_{t+1}`$; the only neighbour of $`y`$ in $`F\{x_{t+1}\}`$ is $`f`$; and $`x_{t+1},f`$ are nonadjacent, and both nonadjacent to $`x`$, contrary to 17.1. So $`R`$ has length 2, and therefore $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to $`f`$.

Since $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`\{x_{t+1}\}A_{t1}`$, we may assume that all other members of $`Y`$ have neighbours in $`\{x_{t+1}\}A_{t1}`$, for otherwise the theorem holds. We recall that initially we chose the path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ so that $`p_m`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, and $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m1}`$ do not, and if possible every member of $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$. Since $`f`$ is adjacent to $`y,x_{t+1}`$, it follows that $`f`$ has no neighbours in $`A_{t1}`$, and $`f`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_m`$, since otherwise there would be a better choice of path using $`f`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`f,x_{t+1}`$ with interior in $`X_t`$. Every internal vertex of $`Q`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, and its ends do not, and $`z`$ is complete to the interior of $`Q`$ and anticomplete to $`A_{t1}`$; so by 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that $`Q`$ is even. So the antipath $`y\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}Q\text{-}f`$ is odd, and all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_{t1}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$, and $`y`$ does not; and $`z`$ is complete to the interior of the antipath and anticomplete to $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_i\}`$. By 2.2 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it follows that $`f`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$, and therefore $`f`$ is adjacent to $`p_1`$. By (2) there exists $`xX_t`$ nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1},p_1`$. Consequently, $`\{z,y,x,p_2,\mathrm{},p_m\}A_{t1}`$ (= $`F^{}`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{x_{t+1},f,p_1\}`$. The only neighbour of $`x_{t+1}`$ in $`F^{}`$ is $`z`$; the only neighbour of $`f`$ in $`F^{}`$ is $`y`$; and $`z,y`$ are both nonadjacent to $`p_1`$. By 17.1, $`F^{}`$ contains a reflection of the triangle, and hence there is a vertex in $`F^{}`$ adjacent to $`y,z,p_1`$. But the only neighbours of $`z`$ in $`F^{}`$ are $`x,y`$, and $`x`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_1`$, a contradiction. This proves (3).

Since $`p_m`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete it follows that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1}`$ all have neighbours in $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$. Since $`x_t,p_m`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t1}`$ and none of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_{t1}`$, we can extend the path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m`$ to a path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}p_{m+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ containing neighbours of all members of $`X_t`$. By (2), we can choose $`i`$ with $`2in`$ maximum so that some vertex of $`X_t`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{i1}`$; and choose $`s`$ with $`0st`$ such that $`x_s`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{i1}`$. Since every vertex in $`X_t`$ has a neighbour in $`\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, it follows from the maximality of $`i`$ that every vertex in $`X_t`$ is adjacent to one of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_i`$, and particular, $`x_s`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$. Note that if $`i>m`$ then $`s=t`$, since $`p_n`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete.
(4) $`i`$ is odd, and $`p_i`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
For $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}x_s\text{-}z`$ is a hole $`C`$ say, and so $`i`$ is odd. Suppose $`p_i`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. Now $`C`$ has length $`6`$, and $`z,x_s`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and $`x_{t+1},p_i`$ are not. Since $`(C,Y)`$ is not an odd wheel, 2.10 implies that $`Y`$ contains a leap or hat for $`C`$. Suppose it contains a leap; then there are nonadjacent $`y_1,y_2Y`$ so that $`y_1\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}y_2`$ is a path. Since this path is odd and has length $`5`$, and its ends are $`X_t`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, this contradicts 13.6. So $`Y`$ contains a hat, that is, there exists $`yY`$ nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_i`$. By (3), $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}\{p_j:i+1jm\}`$.

Suppose first that $`im`$, and let $`p_i\text{-}r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_k\text{-}y`$ be a path from $`p_i`$ to $`y`$ with interior in $`A_{t1}\{p_{i+1},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$. Then $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_k\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, and the only $`X_t`$-complete vertices in this hole are $`z,y`$. Since this hole is not the rim of an odd wheel, 2.10 implies that $`X`$ contains a hat or leap, and so some $`xX_t`$ has no neighbour in $`\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_i,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{k1}\}`$, contrary to the choice of $`x_s`$.

Now suppose that $`i>m`$, and so $`s=t`$. Let $`p_m\text{-}r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_k\text{-}y`$ be a path from $`p_m`$ to $`y`$ with interior in $`A_{t1}`$. Again, $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_m\text{-}r_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}r_k\text{-}y\text{-}z`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, and its only $`X_t`$-complete vertices are $`z,y`$. By 2.10 $`X_t`$ contains a hat or leap. By (1) it contains no leap, so there exists $`xX_t`$ nonadjacent to all $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_m,r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$. Since $`p_m`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, it follows that $`x=x_t`$. Now $`\{x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_i,r_1,\mathrm{},r_k\}`$ ($`=F`$ say) is connected, and catches the triangle $`\{y,z,x_t\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`x_{t+1}`$; the only neighbour of $`y`$ in $`F`$ is $`r_k`$ (because $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_i`$); and the only neighbour of $`x_t`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_i`$ (because $`x_t`$ is a hat). Since $`x_{t+1}`$ is not adjacent to $`p_i`$, this contradicts 17.1. This proves (4).
(5) Let $`R`$ be a path from $`x_t`$ to some vertex $`r`$, such that $`r`$ is the unique $`X_{t1}`$-complete vertex in $`R`$, and $`V(Rx_t)A_{t1}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$. Then $`R`$ is odd, and has length $`3`$. In particular, $`x_t`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_m,p_{m1}`$.
For assume that $`R`$ is even. Then the path $`z\text{-}x_t\text{-}R\text{-}r`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, so by 13.6, it has length 3, that is, $`R`$ has length 2. Let $`q`$ be the middle vertex of $`R`$. By 13.6 there is an odd antipath $`Q`$ joining $`q,x_t`$ with interior in $`X_{t1}`$. Now $`p_m`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete and nonadjacent to $`x_t`$, and since $`Q`$ cannot be completed to an antihole via $`x_t\text{-}p_m\text{-}q`$, it follows that $`p_m`$ is adjacent to $`q`$. Suppose first that $`q\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$; then it follows that $`q=p_{m1}`$. Hence $`q\text{-}Q\text{-}x_t\text{-}p_m`$ is an even antipath of length $`4`$; $`q`$ is its only vertex that is anticomplete to $`A_{t1}`$, and $`p_m`$ is its only vertex that is anticomplete to $`\{z,x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m2}\}`$. Since the sets $`A_{t1}`$, $`\{z,x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{m2}\}`$ are each connected and anticomplete to each other, this contradicts 13.7 applied in $`\overline{G}`$. So $`qA_{t1}`$, and in particular $`x_t`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_m,p_{m1}`$. Let $`R^{}`$ be a path between $`x_t,p_m`$ with interior in $`\{z,x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}`$; then $`x_t\text{-}R\text{-}p_m\text{-}R^{}\text{-}x_t`$ is a hole of length $`6`$ sharing the vertices $`x_t,q,p_m`$ with the antihole $`q\text{-}Q\text{-}x_t\text{-}p_m\text{-}z\text{-}q`$, contrary to 15.7. So $`R`$ is odd. Since $`r`$ is not $`X_t`$-complete, it follows that $`R`$ has length $`3`$. The last assertion of the claim is immediate. This proves (5).
(6) We may assume that none of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{i1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and in particular $`im`$.
For suppose first that one of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{i1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and choose $`h`$ with $`1h<i`$ maximum so that $`p_h`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete. Since $`p_h`$ is not adjacent to $`p_s`$ it follows that $`s=t`$, and therefore $`p_i`$ is not $`X_{t1}`$-complete. By (5), $`ih`$ is even, and so the path $`p_h\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}x_t\text{-}z`$ is even and has length $`4`$. Since its only $`X_{t1}`$-complete vertices are its ends, and since $`z,x_t,p_i`$ are $`Y`$-complete by (4), it follows from 21.1 that there is a wheel with hub $`Y`$, and the theorem holds. So we may assume that none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{i1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and in particular $`im`$, since $`p_m`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete. Now assume that $`x_{t+1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete. Since $`x_{t+1}`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_s`$ it follows that $`s=t`$. Let $`R`$ be a path between $`x_t,p_m`$ with interior in $`A_{t1}`$. By (5), $`R`$ is odd, and so the path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}x_t\text{-}R\text{-}p_m`$ is odd, of length $`5`$, its ends are $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 13.6. This proves (6).

Choose $`k`$ with $`ikm`$ minimum such that $`p_k`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete.
(7) None of $`x_{t+1},p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and $`k`$ is odd.
The first assertion follows from (6). Hence the path $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ has length $`4`$, and its ends are $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not; so by 13.6, it has even length. This proves (7).
(8) $`x_t`$ is adjacent to one of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$.
For suppose $`x_t`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$. From the definition of $`i`$ it follows that $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$. Let $`S`$ be a path between $`x_t,p_k`$ with interior in $`A_{t1}\{p_{k+1},\mathrm{},p_m\}`$, and let $`C`$ be the hole $`x_t\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}S\text{-}x_t`$. Since $`C`$ is even and $`k`$ is odd, it follows that $`S`$ is even, and so by (5), some internal vertex of $`S`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete. The path $`z\text{-}x_t\text{-}S\text{-}p_k`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X_{t1}`$-complete, so by 2.3 it contains an odd number of $`X_{t1}`$-complete edges. Since $`x_t`$ is not $`X_{t1}`$-complete, all these $`X_{t1}`$-complete edges belong to $`S`$ and hence to $`C`$, and there are no further $`X_{t1}`$-complete edges in $`C`$. Thus an odd number of edges of $`C`$ are $`X_{t1}`$-complete, and so by 2.3 there is exactly one, and exactly two $`X_{t1}`$-complete vertices. Since $`p_k`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete, the second such vertex is the neighbour of $`p_k`$ in $`S`$. This therefore does not belong to $`A_{t1}`$, and so $`k<m`$, and $`p_{k+1}`$ is the second $`X_{t1}`$-complete vertex of $`C`$. By 2.10 applied to $`C`$, $`X_{t1}`$ contains a leap or hat, and in either case some $`xX_{t1}`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`x_t,x_{t+1},p_1`$, and adjacent to $`p_k`$. Hence $`(V(C)\{x_t,x_{t+1}\})\{x\}`$ ($`=F`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{z,x_t,x_{t+1}\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`x`$; the only neighbour of $`x_{t+1}`$ in $`F`$ is $`p_1`$; and $`x,p_1`$ are nonadjacent, and are both nonadjacent to $`x_t`$, contrary to 17.1. This proves (8).
(9) $`p_k`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
For suppose not. Then $`i<k`$, by (4). But then $`z,X_{t1}`$ are $`Y`$-complete and $`x_{t+1},p_k`$ are not, and some vertex of the path $`x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ is $`Y`$-complete (namely $`p_i`$); and so $`(X_{t1},Y,z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k)`$ is a pseudowheel, contrary to $`G_8`$. This proves (9).

By (8), we may choose $`j`$ with $`1jk`$ maximum such that $`x_t`$ is adjacent to $`p_j`$. By (5), $`kj`$ is even and $`2`$. Suppose that $`p_j`$ is $`Y`$-complete. The path $`z\text{-}x_t\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ has even length $`4`$, and its only $`X_{t1}`$-complete vertices are its ends, and $`z,x_t,p_j,X_{t1}`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, so by 21.1, there is a wheel with hub $`Y`$ and the theorem holds. So we may assume that $`p_j`$ is not $`Y`$-complete. Now the path $`x_t\text{-}p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ has odd length $`3`$, and both its ends are $`Y`$-complete, and the $`Y`$-complete vertex $`z`$ has no neighbour in its interior, so by 2.1 and 2.3, an odd number of its edges are $`Y`$-complete. Since $`p_j`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, an odd number of edges of $`p_j\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ are $`Y`$-complete. The path $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ ($`=P`$ say) is even, by (7), and since its ends are $`Y`$-complete, it follows that an even number of its edges are $`Y`$-complete, by 2.3. We deduce that an odd number of edges of $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$ are $`Y`$-complete. There is therefore a $`Y`$-segment $`P^{}`$ of this path that has odd length. Since $`p_j`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, it follows that $`P^{}`$ is also a $`Y`$-segment of $`P`$. If $`P^{}`$ has length $`>1`$ then 21.1 applied to $`P`$ implies that there is a wheel with hub $`Y`$, and the theorem holds. So we may assume that $`P^{}`$ has length 1. But both vertices of $`P^{}`$ are internal vertices of $`P`$, since $`x_{t+1},p_j`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, and again 21.1 applied to $`P`$ implies there is a wheel with hub $`Y`$. This proves 21.2.

Before we apply this result, it is helpful to transform it a little.

###### 21.3

Let $`G_8`$, let $`YV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame with $`Y(A_0\{z\})=\mathrm{}`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a wheel system with hub $`Y`$, where $`t1`$. Define $`A_i,X_i`$ as usual, and assume that at most $`yY`$ has no neighbour in $`A_1`$. Suppose there is no wheel with hub $`Y`$. Then there exists $`r`$ with $`1rt`$, and a member $`yY`$, with the following properties:

* $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_r`$
* $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_r`$, and a non-neighbour in $`X_r`$.

Proof. We proceed by induction on $`t`$. If $`t=1`$ then 19.1 implies that there exists $`yY`$ nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and with no neighbour in $`A_t`$, and the theorem holds. So we may assume $`t2`$. If $`x_{t+1}`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$, then the result follows from 21.2, since at most one member of $`Y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$. So we assume that $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_{t1}`$. If $`x_{t+1}`$ is $`X_{t1}`$-complete then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}$$

is a $`Y`$-diamond, and the theorem holds by 20.1. If $`x_{t+1}`$ is not $`X_{t1}`$-complete, then

$$x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t1},x_{t+1}$$

is a wheel system with hub $`Y`$, and the result follows from the inductive hypothesis. This proves 21.3.

We also need a further transformation, which uses the following lemma.

###### 21.4

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition, let $`YV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame with $`Y(A_0\{z\})=\mathrm{}`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ be a wheel system with $`s1`$, such that $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Then there is a sequence $`x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ with $`ts`$ such that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ is a wheel system with respect to the frame $`(z,A_0)`$, with hub $`Y`$.

Proof. For choose a sequence $`x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_t`$, all $`Y`$-complete and such that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a wheel system with respect to $`(z,A_0)`$, with $`t`$ maximum. So $`t1`$. Define $`X_i`$ and $`A_i`$ as usual. From 15.2, there is a path $`P`$ from $`z`$ to $`A_t`$, disjoint from $`X_t`$ and containing no $`X_t`$-complete vertex except $`z`$. Let $`v`$ be the neighbour of $`z`$ in this path. From the maximality of $`A_t`$, it follows that $`P`$ has length 2. So $`v`$ has a neighbour in $`A_t`$, and therefore $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t,v`$ is a wheel system. From the maximality of $`s`$ it follows that $`v`$ is not $`Y`$-complete, and therefore $`Y`$ is a hub for this wheel system. This proves 21.4.

###### 21.5

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition, let $`YV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame with $`Y(A_0\{z\})=\mathrm{}`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ be a wheel system with $`s1`$, such that $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Define $`A_i,X_i`$ as usual, and assume that every member of $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_s`$, and at most one member of $`Y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_1`$. Suppose there is no wheel with hub $`Y`$. Then there exists $`r`$ with $`1r<s`$, and a member $`yY`$, and a vertex $`v`$ with the following properties:

* $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`v`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_r`$
* $`v`$ is adjacent to $`z`$, and has a neighbour in $`A_r`$, and a non-neighbour in $`X_r`$.

Proof. By 21.4, there is a sequence $`x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ with $`ts`$ such that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ is a wheel system with respect to the frame $`(z,A_0)`$, with hub $`Y`$. By 21.3, there exists $`r`$ with $`1rt`$, and a member $`yY`$, such that $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_r`$, and $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_r`$, and a non-neighbour in $`X_r`$. Since every member of $`Y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_s`$, it follows that $`r<s`$, and the result follows. This proves 21.5.

## 22 Wheels with tails

We continue with the proof that recalcitrant graphs do not contain wheels. The idea is, suppose $`G`$ contains a wheel, and look at one, $`(C,Y)`$ say, with the largest hub. Then we find another vertex to add to the hub, which almost makes a larger hub, but not quite, because where there should be edges joining it to $`C`$ there is instead a path with certain properties (a “tail”). Then we use the machinery of the previous section to show that there is a wheel with a larger hub anyway. So now we need some lemmas about tails.

If $`(C,Y)`$ is a wheel in $`G`$, and there is no wheel $`(C^{},Y^{})`$ with $`YY^{}`$, we say $`(C,Y)`$ is an optimal wheel.

Let $`(C,Y)`$ be a wheel in $`G`$. A kite for $`(C,Y)`$ is a vertex $`yV(G)(YV(C))`$, not $`Y`$-complete, that has at least four neighbours in $`C`$, three of which are consecutive and $`Y`$-complete.

###### 22.1

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition, and let $`(C,Y)`$ be an optimal wheel in $`G`$. Then there is no kite.

Proof. Assume $`y`$ is a kite. Let $`x_0\text{-}z\text{-}x_1`$ be a subpath of $`C`$, all $`Y`$-complete and adjacent to $`y`$. Let $`A_0=V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$, so $`x_0,x_1`$ is a wheel system with respect to $`(z,A_0)`$, and $`x_0,x_1`$ are $`Y\{y\}`$-complete. By 21.4, there is a sequence $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ with $`t1`$ such that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ is a wheel system with respect to the frame $`(z,A_0)`$, with hub $`Y\{y\}`$. Since every vertex of $`Y\{y\}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_0`$, and there is no wheel with hub $`Y\{y\}`$ from the optimality of $`(C,Y)`$, this contradicts 21.3. This proves 22.1.

Let $`(C,Y)`$ be a wheel in $`G`$, let $`zV(C)`$, and let $`x_0,x_1`$ be the neighbours of $`z`$ in $`C`$. A path $`T`$ of $`G\{x_0,x_1\}`$ from $`z`$ to $`V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$ is called a tail for $`z`$ (with respect to the wheel $`(C,Y)`$) if

* $`x_0,z,x_1`$ are all $`Y`$-complete,
* there is a $`Y`$-complete edge in $`C\{x_0,z,x_1\}`$
* the neighbour of $`z`$ in $`T`$ is adjacent to $`x_0,x_1`$,
* no vertex of $`T`$ is in $`Y`$,
* no internal vertex of $`T`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and
* no vertex of $`G`$ is a kite for $`(C,Y)`$.

###### 22.2

Let $`G_8`$, let $`(C,Y)`$ be an optimal wheel, let $`zV(C)`$, and let $`x_0,x_1`$ be the neighbours of $`z`$ in $`C`$. Let $`T`$ be a tail for $`z`$, and let $`y`$ be the neighbour of $`z`$ in $`T`$. Let $`A_0=V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$, and let $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ be a wheel system with respect to the frame $`(z,A_0)`$, with hub $`Y\{y\}`$. Define $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_{t+1}`$ as usual. Then either $`y`$ is adjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$, or $`y`$ has a neighbour in $`A_t`$.

Proof. We assume for a contradiction that $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_t`$, and $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$. Let $`y\text{-}u_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}u_n`$ be a minimal subpath of $`Tz`$ so that $`u_n`$ has a neighbour in $`A_t`$; so $`n>0`$. From the maximality of $`A_t`$ it follows that $`u_n`$ is $`X_t`$-complete and therefore $`X_1`$-complete since $`t1`$; and since $`T`$ is a tail it follows that none of $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ are $`Y`$-complete. Let $`P`$ be a path from $`u_n`$ to some $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p`$ say, so that no vertex of $`Pp`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
(1) $`P`$ is odd.
For $`P`$ has length $`1`$ since no vertex of $`Tz`$ is $`Y`$-complete; and the only $`X_t`$-complete vertex of $`P`$ is $`u_n`$, and the only $`Y`$-complete vertex of $`P`$ is $`p`$. Since $`z`$ is complete to $`X_t`$ and to $`Y`$, and anticomplete to $`V(P)`$, it follows from 2.9 that $`P`$ has odd length. This proves (1).

Since $`y,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}`$ have no neighbours in $`A_t`$ it follows that $`z\text{-}y\text{-}u_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}u_n\text{-}P\text{-}p`$ is a path, $`Q`$ say.
(2) We may assume that $`Q`$ has even length $`4`$, and so $`n`$ is even.
For the ends of $`Q`$ are $`Y`$-complete, and since none of $`y,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ are $`Y`$-complete, it follows that no internal vertex of $`Q`$ is $`Y`$-complete. Suppose that $`Q`$ has length 3. So $`n=1`$, and there is an odd antipath joining $`y,u_1`$ with interior in $`Y`$. Hence every $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`G`$ is adjacent to one of $`y,u_1`$. In particular, since $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_t`$, it follows that $`u_1`$ is adjacent to all the $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ except $`z`$ (for we already showed that it is $`X_t`$-complete and therefore adjacent to $`x_0,x_1`$). But then $`u_1`$ is a kite for $`(C,Y)`$, a contradiction. So we may assume that $`Q`$ does not have length 3. Hence by 13.6, $`Q`$ has even length. From (1), it follows that $`n`$ is even. This proves (2).
(3) $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to one of $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}`$.
For suppose not. Choose a path $`N`$ from $`x_{t+1}`$ to $`u_n`$ with interior in $`A_t`$ (possibly of length 1). Then $`z\text{-}y\text{-}u_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}u_n\text{-}N\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}z`$ is a hole, and since $`n`$ is even it follows that $`N`$ is even. Hence $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}N\text{-}u_n`$ is an odd path; its ends are $`X_t`$-complete, its internal vertices are not, and the $`X_t`$-complete vertex $`y`$ has no neighbour in its interior, contrary to 2.2. This proves (3).
(4) $`x_{t+1}`$ is not $`Y`$-complete.
For suppose it is. Since $`G_8`$, the triple $`(Y,X_{t+1},Q)`$ is not a pseudowheel. Since $`y,p`$ are not $`X_{t+1}`$-complete, it follows that no internal vertex of $`S`$ is $`X_{t+1}`$-complete. By 2.11 applied to $`Q`$, $`Y`$ and $`X_{t+1}`$, it follows that there exists $`xX_{t+1}`$ with no neighbour in $`Qz`$ except possibly $`p`$. But $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to one of $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}`$ by (3), and all other members of $`X_{t+1}`$ are adjacent to $`y`$, a contradiction. This proves (4).

Since $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_t`$, there is a path $`R`$ from $`x_{t+1}`$ to some $`Y`$-complete vertex $`r`$ in $`A_t`$ with $`V(Rx_{t+1})A_t`$ so that no vertex of $`Rr`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
(5) $`R`$ has odd length.
For certainly $`R`$ has length $`1`$; suppose it has length 2, and let its middle vertex be $`a`$ say. There is an antipath joining $`x_{t+1},a`$ with interior in $`Y`$, and it is odd since it can be complete to an antihole via $`a\text{-}z\text{-}r\text{-}x_{t+1}`$. Now $`x_{t+1},a`$ are not $`X_t`$-complete (since $`aA_t`$) and so there is an antipath joining $`x_{t+1},a`$ with interior in $`X_t`$, which is therefore also odd, since its union with the antipath with interior in $`Y`$ is an antihole. But $`y`$ is $`X_t`$-complete and nonadjacent to both $`x_{t+1}`$ and $`a`$ (since it has no neighbour in $`A_t`$), and so this antipath can be completed to an odd antihole via $`a\text{-}y\text{-}x_{t+1}`$, a contradiction. This proves that $`R`$ does not have length 2. Hence the path $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}R\text{-}r`$ does not have length 3; its ends are $`Y`$-complete and its internal vertices are not, and it has length $`>1`$, so by 13.6 it has even length, that is, $`R`$ has odd length. This proves (5).
(6) If $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to $`u_1`$ then $`u_1`$ is $`X_t`$-complete.
For suppose not; then there is an antipath $`L`$ say joining $`x_{t+1},u_1`$ with interior in $`X_t`$. So $`z\text{-}u_1\text{-}L\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}y`$ is an antipath of length $`4`$; all its internal vertices have neighbours in $`A_t\{u_2,\mathrm{},u_n\}`$, and its ends do not. By 13.6 applied in $`\overline{G}`$, it has even length, and so $`u_1\text{-}L\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}y`$ is an odd antipath. Since $`u_1,y`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, they are joined by an antipath with interior in $`Y`$, which is therefore also odd; and yet it can be completed to an odd antihole via $`y\text{-}p\text{-}u_1`$ (we recall that $`pA_t`$ is $`Y`$-complete). This proves (6).
(7) None of $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}`$ is $`X_t`$-complete.
For suppose that one of $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}`$ is $`X_t`$-complete, and let $`S`$ be a path from $`x_{t+1}`$ to some $`X_t`$-complete vertex $`s`$ say, with $`V(Sx_{t+1})\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}\}`$, such that $`s`$ is the only $`X_t`$-complete vertex in $`S`$. Certainly $`S`$ has length $`1`$. Suppose it has even length. Then the path $`z\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}S\text{-}s`$ is odd, and its ends are $`X_t`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not; so by 2.2, the $`X_t`$-complete vertex $`y`$ has a neighbour in its interior, contrary to (6). So $`S`$ has odd length. The path $`s\text{-}S\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}R\text{-}r`$ therefore has even length; its only $`X_t`$-complete vertex is $`s`$, and its only $`Y`$-complete vertex is $`r`$, so by 13.7, the path has length 2, that is, both $`R,S`$ have length 1. Moreover, either $`x_{t+1},r`$ are joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`X_t`$, or $`x_{t+1},s`$ are joined by an odd antipath with interior in $`Y`$. The first is impossible since the antipath could be completed to an odd antihole via $`r\text{-}y\text{-}x_{t+1}`$, so the second holds. In particular, every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`x_{t+1},s`$, and therefore all such vertices in $`A_t`$ are adjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$. In particular, $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to all the $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ except possible $`x_0,x_1`$. Since there is a $`Y`$-complete edge in $`C\{x_0,z,x_1\}`$ from the definition of a tail, it follows that $`x_{t+1}`$ has two adjacent neighbours in $`C`$ of opposite wheel-parity, and at least one other neighbour in $`C`$; but it is not a kite, and the wheel is optimal, contrary to 16.1. This proves (7).

By (3) we may choose $`i`$ with $`1in1`$ minimum such that $`x_{t+1}`$ is adjacent to $`u_i`$. By (7), the only $`X_t`$-complete vertices in the hole $`z\text{-}y\text{-}u_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}u_i\text{-}x_{t+1}\text{-}z`$ are $`z`$,$`y`$, and therefore by (6) this hole has length $`6`$. By 2.10 $`X_t`$ contains a leap or a hat. If it contains a leap, there are nonadjacent vertices in $`X_t`$, joined by an odd path of length $`5`$ with interior in $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_i,x_{t+1}\}`$, and consequently with no internal vertex $`Y`$-complete. Since both its ends are $`Y`$-complete, this contradicts 13.6. So there is a hat, that is, there exists $`xX_t`$ with no neighbours in $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_i,x_{t+1}\}`$. Then $`A_t\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,x_{t+1}\}`$ ($`=F`$ say) catches the triangle $`\{z,y,x\}`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`F`$ is $`x_{t+1}`$; the only neighbour of $`y`$ in $`F`$ is $`u_1`$; and both $`x_{t+1},u_1`$ are nonadjacent to $`x`$. Moreover $`x_{t+1}`$ is nonadjacent to $`u_1`$, and so $`F`$ contains no reflection of the triangle. This contradicts 17.1, and therefore proves 22.2.

We combine the previous result with 21.3 to prove the following.

###### 22.3

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition, and let $`(C,Y)`$ be an optimal wheel in $`G`$. Then no vertex of $`C`$ has a tail.

Proof. Suppose $`zV(C)`$ has a tail $`T`$; let $`y`$ be the neighbour of $`z`$ in $`T`$, and let $`x_0,x_1`$ be the neighbours of $`z`$ in $`C`$. Let $`A_0=V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$, so $`x_0,x_1`$ is a wheel system with respect to $`(z,A_0)`$, and $`x_0,x_1`$ are $`Y\{y\}`$-complete. By 21.4 there exist $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ with $`t1`$ such that $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{t+1}`$ is a wheel system with respect to $`(z,A_0)`$, with hub $`Y\{y\}`$. Define $`A_i,X_i`$ as usual. From the construction, all members of $`Y`$ have a neighbour in $`A_0`$. By 21.3, there exists $`r`$ with $`1rt`$, such that $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`x_{t+1}`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_r`$, and $`x_{t+1}`$ has a neighbour in $`A_r`$, and a non-neighbour in $`X_r`$. Now $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_r,x_{t+1}`$ is a wheel system with hub $`Y\{y\}`$, and $`T`$ is a tail for $`z`$, contrary to 22.2. This proves 22.3.

## 23 The end of a wheel

In this section we complete the proof that there is no wheel in a recalcitrant graph.

###### 23.1

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition, and let $`(C,Y)`$ be an optimal wheel in $`G`$. Then there is a subpath $`c_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}c_3`$ of $`C`$ such that $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, and a path $`c_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}c_3`$ such that none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ are in $`V(C)Y`$, none of them is $`Y`$-complete, and none of them has a neighbour in $`V(C)\{c_1,c_2,c_3\}`$.

Proof. There are two nonadjacent $`Y`$-complete vertices in $`C`$ with opposite wheel-parity, say $`a,b`$, and by 15.2, there is a path $`P`$ in $`G`$ joining them so that none of its interior vertices is in $`Y`$ or is $`Y`$-complete. There may be internal vertices of $`P`$ that belong to $`C`$, but we may choose a subpath $`P^{}`$ of $`P`$, with ends $`a^{},b^{}`$ say, so that $`a^{},b^{}V(C)`$ have opposite wheel-parity and $`P^{}`$ has minimum length. It follows that no vertex of the interior of $`P^{}`$ is in $`C`$. Suppose $`a^{},b^{}`$ are adjacent; then since they are in $`C`$ and have opposite wheel-parity, they are both $`Y`$-complete, and therefore neither is in the interior of $`P`$, and so $`a,b`$ are adjacent, a contradiction. So $`a^{},b^{}`$ are nonadjacent. Let $`F`$ be the interior of $`P^{}`$; then no vertex of $`F`$ is in $`YV(C)`$, no vertex of $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete, and there are attachments of $`F`$ in $`C`$ which are nonadjacent and have opposite wheel-parity. The result follows from 22.1 and 16.2 applied to $`F`$. This proves 23.1.

Now we can prove 1.3.9, which we restate.

###### 23.2

Let $`G_8`$, not admitting a balanced skew partition; then there is no wheel in $`G`$. In particular, every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_9`$.

Proof. Suppose there is a wheel in $`G`$, and choose an optimal wheel $`(C,Y)`$ so that $`C`$ contains as few $`Y`$-complete edges as possible.
(1) Exactly $`4`$ edges of $`C`$ are $`Y`$-complete.
For by 23.1 there is a subpath $`c_1\text{-}c_2\text{-}c_3`$ of $`C`$ such that $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ are all $`Y`$-complete, and a path $`c_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}c_3`$ such that none of $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ are in $`V(C)Y`$, none of them is $`Y`$-complete, and none of them has a neighbour in $`V(C)\{c_1,c_2,c_3\}`$. Let $`C^{}`$ be the hole formed by the union of the paths $`Cc_2`$, $`c_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k\text{-}c_3`$. Then it has length $`6`$, and it contains fewer $`Y`$-complete edges than $`C`$. From the choice of $`(C,Y)`$ it follows that $`(C^{},Y)`$ is not a wheel, and since $`C`$ has at least 4 $`Y`$-complete edges, and $`C^{}`$ has only two fewer, it follows that exactly 4 edges of $`C`$ are $`Y`$-complete. This proves (1).

Since $`(C,Y)`$ is not an odd wheel, there are vertices $`x_0,z,x_1,c_1,c_2,c_3`$ of $`C`$, in order, and all distinct except possibly $`x_1=c_1`$ or $`c_3=x_0`$, so that the $`Y`$-complete edges in $`C`$ are $`x_0z,zx_1,c_1c_2,c_2c_3`$.
(2) There is no tail for $`z`$ with respect to $`(C,Y)`$.
For suppose there is a tail; then by 21.5 there is a wheel with hub a proper superset of $`Y`$, a contradiction. This proves (2).

Let $`A_0=V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$. Since $`G`$ does not admit a skew partition, there is a path $`T`$ of $`G\{x_0,x_1\}`$ from $`z`$ to $`A_0`$, such that no vertex in its interior is in $`Y`$ or $`Y`$-complete. Let $`y`$ be the neighbour of $`z`$ in $`T`$.
(3) $`y`$ is not adjacent to both $`x_0,x_1`$.
For assume it is. By 22.1 there is no kite for $`(C,Y)`$, so with respect to the wheel $`(C,Y)`$, $`T`$ is a tail for $`z`$ (because at least one of the $`Y`$-complete edges $`c_1c_2,c_2c_3`$ belongs to $`C\{x_0,z,x_1\}`$). This contradicts (2), and therefore proves (3).
(4) $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_0`$.
For suppose first that it has a neighbour in $`A_0c_2`$, say $`c`$. Then $`c,z`$ are nonadjacent and have opposite wheel-parity in the wheel $`(C,Y)`$, and not both neighbours of $`c`$ in $`C`$ are $`Y`$-complete, by (1), and not both neighbours of $`z`$ in $`C`$ are adjacent to $`y`$, by (2); so 16.1 implies that $`(C,Y\{y\})`$ is a wheel, a contradiction. So $`y`$ has no neighbour in $`A_0c_2`$. Next suppose that $`y`$ is adjacent to $`c_2`$. From the symmetry we may assume that $`x_0c_3`$. Let $`Q`$ be the path of $`Cz`$ between $`x_0,c_3`$; so $`Q`$ has length $`>0`$, and even length by 2.3. Since $`x_0\text{-}Q\text{-}c_3\text{-}c_2\text{-}y\text{-}x_0`$ is not an odd hole, it follows that $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`x_0`$. But then the hole $`x_0\text{-}Q\text{-}c_3\text{-}c_2\text{-}y\text{-}z\text{-}x_0`$ is the rim of an odd wheel with hub $`Y`$, contrary to $`G_8`$. So $`y`$ is not adjacent to $`c_2`$. This proves (4).

Let $`T`$ have vertices $`z\text{-}y\text{-}v_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}v_{n+1}`$, where $`v_{n+1}A_0`$. From (4), $`n1`$. By choosing $`T`$ of minimum length we may assume that none of $`y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_0`$.
(5) If $`n=1`$ then no neighbour of $`v_1`$ in $`A_0`$ is $`Y`$-complete.
For otherwise we may assume $`v_2`$ is $`Y`$-complete. From the symmetry we may assume that $`x_0c_3`$. Let $`Q`$ be the path of $`Cz`$ between $`x_0,c_3`$; so $`Q`$ has length $`>0`$, and even length by 2.3. Since $`y,v_1`$ are not $`Y`$-complete, there is an antipath joining them with interior in $`Y`$, and it is odd since it can be completed to an antihole via $`v_1\text{-}z\text{-}v_2\text{-}y`$. Hence every $`Y`$-complete vertex is adjacent to one of $`y,v_1`$, and since $`c_2,c_3`$ are $`Y`$-complete and not adjacent to $`y`$ by (4), it follows that $`v_1`$ is adjacent to $`c_2,c_3`$. By (3), $`v_1`$ is adjacent to one of $`x_0,x_1`$, and so it has two nonadjacent neighbours in $`C`$ of opposite wheel-parity. By 16.1, there are 3 consecutive vertices in $`C`$, all $`Y`$-complete and adjacent to $`v_1`$. By (2), $`v_1`$ has no other neighbours in $`C`$. Hence $`x_1=c_1`$ and the neighbours of $`v_1`$ in $`C`$ are $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$. Consequently $`x_0`$ is adjacent to $`y`$; but then $`x_0\text{-}Q\text{-}c_3\text{-}v_1\text{-}y\text{-}x_0`$ is an odd hole, a contradiction. This proves (5).
(6) One of $`x_0,x_1`$ has no neighbours in $`\{y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$.
For let $`P`$ be a path $`y\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ from $`y`$ to some $`Y`$-complete vertex $`p_kA_0`$, with interior in $`A_0\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$, such that $`p_k`$ is the only $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`P`$. Since none of $`y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$ have neighbours in $`A_0`$ it follows that $`\{y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}\{y,p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k1}\}`$. From (5), $`k3`$. Since $`G_8`$, $`(Y,\{x_0,x_1\},z\text{-}y\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k)`$ is not a pseudowheel. But the ends of the path $`z\text{-}y\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_k`$ are $`Y`$-complete and its internal vertices are not; the path has length $`4`$; $`Y,z`$ are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, and $`y,p_k`$ are not. So no other vertices of the path are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete. By 2.11, applied to the same path and same anticonnected sets, it follows that one of $`x_0,x_1`$ is nonadjacent to all of $`y,p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k1}`$. Since $`\{y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}\{y,p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k1}\}`$, this proves (6).

Let $`F=\{y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$. From the symmetry we may assume that $`x_0`$ has no neighbours in $`F`$. Let $`S`$ be a path from $`y`$ to $`x_0`$ with interior in $`FA_0`$. It follows that $`S`$ has length $`3`$. Let $`C^{}`$ be the hole $`z\text{-}y\text{-}S\text{-}x_0\text{-}z`$; so $`C^{}`$ has length $`6`$. Suppose that $`x_0`$ is different from $`c_3`$. Since $`(C^{},Y)`$ is not an odd wheel, it follows that $`(C^{},Y)`$ is not a wheel, and so $`x_0,z`$ are the only $`Y`$-complete vertex in $`C^{}`$. By 2.10, $`Y`$ contains a leap or a hat. A leap would imply there are two vertices in $`Y`$, joined by an odd path of length $`5`$ with interior in $`FA_0`$. Hence its ends are $`\{x_0,x_1\}`$-complete, and its internal vertices are not, contrary to 13.6. So $`Y`$ contains a hat, that is, there exists $`y^{}Y`$ with no neighbour in $`C^{}`$ except $`z,x_0`$. But $`FA_0`$ catches the triangle $`\{x_0,y^{},z\}`$; the only neighbour of $`x_0`$ in $`FA_0`$ is its neighbour in $`S`$, say $`s`$; the only neighbour of $`z`$ in $`FA_0`$ is $`y`$; and $`s,y`$ are nonadjacent, and both nonadjacent to $`y^{}`$, contrary to 17.1. This proves that $`x_0=c_3`$, and therefore $`x_1c_1`$. By exchanging $`x_0,x_1`$, we deduce that $`x_1`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$. There are therefore two attachments of $`F`$ in $`C`$ with opposite wheel-parity, and two that are nonadjacent. By (1), 16.2, 22.1 and the optimality of the wheel, and since $`x_0=c_3`$ has no neighbour in $`F`$, it follows that there is a path $`R`$ between $`z,c_2`$ with interior in $`F`$, and no vertex of $`C`$ has neighbours in the interior of $`R`$ except $`z,c_2`$. But then the hole formed by the union of $`R`$ and the path $`Cx_0`$ is the rim of an odd wheel with hub $`Y`$, a contradiction. This proves 23.2.

###### 23.3

Let $`G_9`$, admitting no balanced skew partition, let $`(z,A_0)`$ be a frame and $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ a wheel system with respect to it, and define $`X_i,A_i`$ as usual. Then there is no vertex $`yV(G)\{z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_s\}`$ that is $`\{z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_s\}`$-complete and has a neighbour in $`A_s`$.

Proof. For suppose there is such a frame, wheel system, and $`y`$, and choose them with $`s`$ minimum (it is important here that we minimize over all choices of the frame, not just of the wheel system); say $`(z,A_0)`$, $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_s`$ and $`y`$ respectively. By 21.5, there exists $`r`$ with $`1r<s`$, and a vertex $`v`$ such that $`y`$ is nonadjacent to $`v`$ and has no neighbour in $`A_r`$, and $`v`$ is adjacent to $`z`$, and has a neighbour in $`A_r`$, and a non-neighbour in $`X_r`$. Then $`(y,A_0)`$ is a frame, and $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_r`$ is a wheel system with respect to it, and $`z`$ is $`\{y,x_0,\mathrm{},x_r\}`$-complete, and has a neighbour in $`A_r^{}`$ (namely $`v`$), where $`A_r^{}`$ is the maximal connected subset of $`V(G)`$ including $`A_0`$ and containing no neighbour of $`y`$ and no $`X_r`$-complete vertex. But this contradicts the minimality of $`s`$. This proves 23.3.

Now we can prove 1.3.10, the following.

###### 23.4

Let $`G_9`$, admitting no balanced skew partition, and let $`C`$ be a hole in $`G`$ of length $`6`$. Then there is no vertex of $`GV(C)`$ with three consecutive neighbours in $`C`$. In particular, every recalcitrant graph belongs to $`_{10}`$.

Proof. Suppose that there is such a vertex, say $`y`$, and let it be adjacent to $`x_0,z,x_1V(C)`$, where $`x_0\text{-}z\text{-}x_1`$ is a path. Let $`A_0=V(C)\{z,x_0,x_1\}`$. By 23.3 applied to $`(z,A_0)`$ and $`x_0,x_1`$, it follows that $`y`$ has no other neighbour in $`C`$. Choose $`t`$ maximum so that there is a sequence $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_t`$ with the following properties:

* for $`2it`$, there is a connected subset $`A_{i1}`$ of $`V(G)`$ including $`A_{i2}`$, containing a neighbour of $`x_i`$, containing no neighbour of $`z`$ or $`y`$, and containing no $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1}\}`$-complete vertex,
* for $`1it`$, $`x_i`$ is not $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1}\}`$-complete, and
* $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ are $`\{y,z\}`$-complete.

Since $`G`$ admits no skew partition by 15.1, there is a path $`P`$ from $`\{z,y\}`$ to $`A_0`$, disjoint from $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$ and containing no $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$-complete vertex in its interior. Choose such a path of minimum length. From the symmetry between $`z,y`$ we may assume its first vertex is $`y`$; say the path is $`y\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_{k+1}`$, where $`p_{k+1}A_0`$. From the minimality of the length of $`P`$ it follows that $`z`$ is not adjacent to any of $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_k`$. If $`z`$ is adjacent to $`p_1`$ then we may set $`x_{t+1}=p_1`$, contrary to the maximality of $`t`$. So $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{k+1}`$ are all nonadjacent to $`z`$. Hence $`(z,A_0)`$ is a frame, and $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$ is a wheel system with respect to it, and $`y`$ is adjacent to all of $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_t`$, and there is a connected subset of $`V(G)`$ including $`A_0`$, containing a neighbour of $`y`$, containing no neighbour of $`z`$, and containing no $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$-complete vertex. But this contradicts 23.3. This proves 23.4.

This has the following useful corollary, which is 1.3.11.

###### 23.5

Let $`G_{10}`$; then $`G`$ does not contain both a hole of length $`6`$ and an antihole of length $`6`$. In particular, for every recalcitrant graph $`G`$, one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ belongs to $`_{11}`$.

Proof. Let $`C`$ be a hole and $`D`$ an antihole, both of length $`6`$. Let $`W=V(C)V(D)`$, $`A=V(C)W`$, and $`B=V(D)W`$. Let $`W,A,B`$ have cardinality $`w,a,b`$ respectively. Let there be $`p`$ edges between $`A`$ and $`W`$, $`q`$ edges between $`B`$ and $`W`$, $`r`$ edges between $`A`$ and $`B`$, and $`s`$ edges with both ends in $`W`$. Let there be $`p^{}`$ nonedges between $`A`$ and $`W`$, $`q^{}`$ nonedges between $`B`$ and $`W`$, $`r^{}`$ nonedges between $`A`$ and $`B`$, and $`s^{}`$ nonedges with both ends in $`W`$. By 2.3, and since $`G_{10}`$, every vertex in $`B`$ has at most $`\frac{1}{2}(a+w)`$ neighbours in $`C`$, so $`q+r\frac{1}{2}(a+w)b`$. Also, every vertex in $`W`$ has at most two neighbours in $`AW`$, so $`p+2s2w`$. Summing, we obtain

$$p+q+r+2s\frac{1}{2}ab+\frac{1}{2}bw+2w.$$

By the same argument in the complement we deduce that

$$p^{}+q^{}+r^{}+2s^{}\frac{1}{2}ab+\frac{1}{2}aw+2w.$$

But

$$p+p^{}+q+q^{}+r+r^{}+2s+2s^{}=ab+aw+bw+w(w1),$$

so

$$4w\frac{1}{2}aw+\frac{1}{2}bw+w(w1),$$

that is,

$$w(a+b+2w10)0.$$

Since $`a+w,b+w6`$, it follows that $`w=0`$, and so $`C,D`$ are disjoint. Moreover, equality holds throughout this calculation, so every vertex in $`D`$ is adjacent to exactly half the vertices of $`C`$ and vice versa. By 2.3, and since $`G_{10}`$, it follows that for each $`vD`$, its neighbours in $`C`$ are pairwise nonadjacent. Let $`C`$ have vertices $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_m`$ in order, and let $`D`$ have vertices $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$. So for every vertex of $`D`$, its set of neighbours in $`V(C)`$ is either the set of all $`c_i`$ with $`i`$ even, or the set with $`i`$ odd, and the same with $`C,D`$ exchanged. We may assume that $`c_1`$ is adjacent to $`d_1`$. Hence the edges between $`\{c_1,c_2,c_4,c_5\}`$ and $`\{d_1,d_2,d_4,d_5\}`$ are $`c_1d_1,c_1d_5,c_2d_2,c_2d_4,c_4d_2,c_4d_4,c_5d_1,c_5d_5`$; and so the subgraph induced on these eight vertices is a double diamond, contrary to $`G_{10}`$. This proves 23.5.

Let us mention a theorem of , which could be applied at this stage as an alternative to the next section, the following (and see also  for some related material):

###### 23.6

Let $`G_5`$. Suppose that for every hole $`C`$ in $`G`$ of length $`6`$, and every vertex $`VV(G)V(C)`$, either:

* $`v`$ has $`3`$ neighbours in $`C`$, or
* $`v`$ has exactly $`4`$ neighbours in $`C`$, say $`a,b,c,d`$, where $`ab`$ and $`cd`$ are edges, or
* $`v`$ is $`V(C)`$-complete, or
* no two neighbours of $`v`$ in $`C`$ are adjacent.

Suppose also that the same holds in $`\overline{G}`$. Then either one of $`G,\overline{G}`$ is bipartite or a line graph of a bipartite graph, or $`G`$ admits a loose skew partition.

The method we give below is somewhat shorter, however.

## 24 The end

We recall that we are trying to prove 13.5. In view of 23.5, it suffices to show the following, which is 1.3.12, and the objective of the remainder of the paper:

###### 24.1

Let $`G_{11}`$; then either $`G`$ is complete, or $`G`$ is bipartite, or $`G`$ admits a balanced skew partition.

We begin with a further strengthening of 13.6, as follows.

###### 24.2

Let $`G_{11}`$, and let $`P`$ be a path in $`G`$ with odd length. Let $`XV(G)`$ be anticonnected, so that both ends of $`P`$ are $`X`$-complete. Then some edge of $`P`$ is $`X`$-complete.

Proof. Suppose not; then from 13.6, $`P`$ has length 3 (let its vertices be $`p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4`$ in order) and $`p_2,p_3`$ are joined by an antipath $`Q`$ with interior in $`X`$. But then $`p_2\text{-}Q\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_1\text{-}p_4\text{-}p_2`$ is an antihole of length $`>4`$, a contradiction. This proves 24.2.

###### 24.3

Let $`G_{11}`$. Let $`XV(G)`$ be nonempty and anticonnected, and let $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ be a path of $`GX`$ with $`n4`$, such that $`p_1,p_n`$ are $`X`$-complete and $`p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$ are not. There is no vertex $`yV(G)(X\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\})`$ such that $`y`$ is $`X`$-complete and adjacent to $`p_1,p_2`$.

Proof. Suppose such a vertex $`y`$ exists. By 24.2, $`n`$ is odd, and therefore $`n5`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath joining $`p_2,p_3`$ with interior in $`X`$. Since $`Q`$ can be completed to an antihole via $`p_3\text{-}p_n\text{-}p_2`$, it follows that $`Q`$ has length 2, and so there exists $`xX`$ nonadjacent to $`p_2,p_3`$. Since $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_n`$, we may choose $`i`$ with $`2in`$ minimum so that $`x`$ is adjacent to $`p_i`$. Hence $`x\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_i\text{-}x`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, and $`y`$ has three consecutive neighbours in it, contrary to $`G_{11}`$. This proves 24.3.

The next is a strengthening of 17.1.

###### 24.4

Let $`G_{11}`$. Let $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$ be disjoint nonempty anticonnected sets, complete to each other. Let $`FV(G)(X_1X_2X_3)`$ be connected, such that for $`i=1,2,3`$ there is an $`X_i`$-complete vertex in $`F`$. Then there is a vertex in $`F`$ complete to two of $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$.

Proof. Suppose not; then we may assume $`F`$ is minimal with this property.
(1) If $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ is a path in $`F`$, and $`p_1`$ is its unique $`X_1`$-complete vertex and $`p_n`$ is its unique $`X_2`$-complete vertex then $`n`$ is even.
For $`n>1`$, since no vertex is both $`X_1`$-complete and $`X_2`$-complete. Assume $`n`$ is odd; then by 13.7, $`n=3`$. But there is an antipath $`Q_1`$ between $`p_2,p_3`$ with interior in $`X_1`$, and an antipath $`Q_2`$ between $`p_1,p_2`$ with interior in $`X_2`$; and then $`p_2\text{-}Q_1\text{-}p_3\text{-}p_1\text{-}Q_2\text{-}p_2`$ is an antihole of length $`>4`$, a contradiction. This proves (1).

From the minimality of $`F`$, there are (up to symmetry) three cases:

1. for $`i=1,2,3`$ there is a unique $`X_i`$-complete vertex $`v_iF`$; there is a vertex $`uF`$ different from $`v_1,v_2,v_3`$, and three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ in $`F`$, all of length $`1`$, such that each $`P_i`$ is from $`v_i`$ to $`u`$, and for $`1i<j3`$, $`V(P_iu)`$ is disjoint from $`V(P_ju)`$ and there is no edge between them, or
2. for $`i=1,2,3`$ there is a unique $`X_i`$-complete vertex $`v_iF`$; there are three paths $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ in $`F`$, where each $`P_i`$ is from $`v_i`$ to some $`u_i`$ say, possibly of length 0; and for $`1i<j3`$, $`V(P_i)`$ is disjoint from $`V(P_j)`$ and the only edge between $`V(P_i),V(P_j)`$ is $`u_iu_j`$, or
3. for $`i=1,2`$ there is a unique $`X_i`$-complete vertex $`v_iF`$, and there is a path $`P`$ in $`F`$ between $`v_1,v_2`$ containing at least one $`X_3`$-complete vertex.

Suppose that the first holds, and let $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ be as in the first case. Then some two of $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ have lengths of the same parity, and their union violates (1).

Now suppose the second holds, and for $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`u_i,v_i,P_i`$ be as in the second case. Let $`Q_1`$ be an antipath joining $`u_2,u_3`$ with interior in $`X_1`$, and define $`Q_2,Q_3`$ similarly. If $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ all have length 0, then the union of $`Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$ is an antihole of length $`>4`$, a contradiction. So we may assume that $`P_1`$ has length $`>0`$, and hence $`u_1v_1`$. Since $`v_1\text{-}u_2\text{-}Q_1\text{-}u_3\text{-}v_1`$ is an antihole, $`Q_1`$ has length 1. Since $`u_1,u_3`$ are not $`X_1`$-complete, they are joined by an antipath with interior in $`X_1`$, and its union with $`Q_2`$ is an antihole; so $`Q_2`$ has length 2, and similarly so does $`Q_3`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`x_i`$ be the middle vertex of $`Q_i`$. So

$$V(P_1u_1)V(P_2u_2)V(P_3u_3)\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$$

is connected, and catches the triangle $`\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}`$; and none of its vertices have two neighbours in the triangle, and it contains no reflection of the triangle since there is no antihole of length 6. This is contrary to 17.1.

Now suppose the third holds, and let $`v_1,v_2,P`$ be as in the third case. Let $`P`$ have vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ where $`v_1=p_1`$ and $`v_2=p_n`$. Since one of its vertices is $`X_3`$-complete and $`p_1,p_n`$ are not, it follows that $`n3`$; and by (1), $`n`$ is odd, so $`n4`$. Choose $`i`$ minimum and $`j`$ maximum with $`1i,jn`$ such that $`p_i,p_j`$ are $`X_3`$-complete. So $`i>1`$, and $`i`$ is even by (1), and similarly $`j<n`$ and $`j`$ is odd. So the path $`p_i\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_j`$ has odd length, and so by 24.2 one of its edges is $`X_3`$-complete, say $`p_kp_{k+1}`$ where $`2kn2`$. Now $`p_k,p_{k+1}`$ are joined by an antipath with interior in $`X_1`$, and by another with interior in $`X_2`$, and the union of these is an antihole; so they both have length 2. Hence for $`i=1,2`$ there exist $`x_iX_i`$ nonadjacent to both $`p_k,p_{k+1}`$. Let $`R`$ be a path between $`p_{k+2},p_{k1}`$ with interior in $`(V(P)\{p_k,p_{k+1}\})\{x_1,x_2\}`$. Then $`R`$ can be completed to a hole $`C`$ via $`p_{k1}\text{-}p_k\text{-}p_{k+1}\text{-}p_{k+2}`$, and $`C`$ has length $`6`$, and at least one edge of $`C`$ is $`X_3`$-complete, namely $`p_kp_{k+1}`$, and at least one more vertex of it is $`X_3`$-complete, since $`R`$ uses at least one of $`x_1,x_2`$. But this contradicts 2.3, and the hypothesis that $`G_{11}`$.

This proves 24.4.

###### 24.5

Let $`G_{11}`$, admitting no balanced skew partition. Let $`X,Y`$ be disjoint anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other, and let $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ be a path of $`G(XY)`$, with $`n2`$, such that $`p_1`$ is the unique $`X`$-complete vertex in the path, and $`p_n`$ is the unique $`Y`$-complete vertex. Then there is no $`zV(G)(XY\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\})`$, complete to $`XY`$ and nonadjacent to $`p_1,p_n`$.

Proof. Suppose that $`z`$ exists, and choose $`X`$ maximal. By 15.2, there is a path $`Q`$ in $`G`$ from $`z`$ to $`p_1`$, so that none of its internal vertices is in $`X`$ or is $`X`$-complete. Since no vertex of $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ is $`X`$-complete, we may choose $`Q`$ so that if $`z`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_2,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ then $`V(Q)\{z,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. The connected subset $`V(Qz)\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$ ($`=F`$ say) contains an $`X`$-complete vertex, a $`Y`$-complete vertex, and a $`\{z\}`$-complete vertex. The only $`X`$-complete vertex in $`F`$ is $`p_1`$, and that is not $`Y`$-complete or $`\{z\}`$-complete; so by 24.4 some vertex in $`F`$ is $`Y`$-complete and adjacent to $`z`$. If $`z`$ has a neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, then $`V(Q)\{z,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and so $`p_n`$ is the only vertex of $`F`$ that is $`Y`$-complete; and it is not adjacent to $`z`$, a contradiction. So $`z`$ has no neighbour in $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, and therefore only one vertex in $`F`$ is adjacent to $`z`$, the neighbour of $`z`$ in $`Q`$, say $`q`$. Hence $`q`$ is nonadjacent to $`p_1`$, for otherwise we could add $`q`$ to $`X`$, contrary to the maximality of $`X`$. Consequently $`Q`$ has length $`>2`$. This contradicts 24.3 applied to $`Q`$,$`X`$ and any vertex $`yY`$. This proves 24.5.

We deduce

###### 24.6

Let $`G_{11}`$, admitting no balanced skew partition, and let $`C`$ be a hole. If $`zV(G)V(C)`$ has two neighbours in $`C`$ that are adjacent, then $`C`$ has length $`4`$ and $`z`$ has a third neighbour in $`C`$. In particular, $`G`$ has no antipath of length $`4`$.

Proof. Let $`C`$ be the hole with vertices $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n+2}`$ in order, and assume some $`zV(G)V(C)`$ is adjacent to $`p_{n+1},p_{n+2}`$. By 24.5, taking $`X=\{p_{n+1}\}`$ and $`Y=\{p_{n+2}\}`$ we deduce that $`z`$ is adjacent to at least one of $`p_1,p_n`$. Since $`G_{11}`$ it follows that $`C`$ has length $`4`$. This proves 24.6.

###### 24.7

Let $`G_{11}`$, admitting no balanced skew partition. Let $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$ be pairwise disjoint, nonempty, anticonnected subsets of $`V(G)`$, complete to each other. Let $`FV(G)(X_1X_2X_3)`$ be connected, so that for at least two values of $`i\{1,2,3\}`$, every member of $`X_i`$ has a neighbour in $`F`$. Then some vertex of $`F`$ is complete to two of $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$.

Proof. Assume not, and choose a counterexample with $`X_1X_2X_3F`$ minimal. Suppose $`F`$ contains an $`X_i`$-complete vertex for two values of $`i\{1,2,3\}`$, say $`i=1,2`$; and choose a path $`p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n`$ of $`F`$ such that $`p_1`$ is $`X_1`$-complete and $`p_n`$ is $`X_2`$-complete, with $`n`$ minimum. So $`n2`$. From the minimality of $`F`$, $`F=V(P)`$, and there is a vertex $`x_1X_1`$ such that $`p_1`$ is its only neighbour in $`F`$, and there exists $`x_2X_2`$ so that $`p_n`$ is its only neighbour in $`F`$. By 24.6 applied to the hole $`x_2\text{-}x_1\text{-}p_1\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}p_n\text{-}x_2`$ and any $`x_3X_3`$, it follows that $`n=2`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath between $`p_1,p_2`$ with interior in $`X_3`$; since $`p_1`$ has a nonneighbour $`x_2X_2`$, and $`p_2`$ has a nonneighbour $`x_1X_1`$, it follows that $`x_1\text{-}p_2\text{-}Q\text{-}p_1\text{-}x_2`$ is an antipath of length $`5`$, contrary to 24.5.

So there is at most one $`i`$ so that $`F`$ contains $`X_i`$-complete vertices, and from the symmetry we may assume that $`F`$ contains no $`X_1`$\- or $`X_2`$-complete vertices. We may also assume that all members of $`X_1`$ have neighbours in $`F`$, and therefore $`|X_1|2`$; choose distinct $`x_1,x_1^{}X_1`$ so that $`X_1x_1,X_1x_1^{}`$ are both anticonnected. From the minimality of $`X_1`$, there is a vertex $`f`$ of $`F`$ complete to two of $`X_1x_1,X_2,X_3`$, and therefore complete to $`X_1x_1`$ and $`X_3`$, and similarly a vertex $`f^{}`$ of $`F`$ complete to $`X_1x_1^{}`$ and $`X_3`$. Let $`P`$ be a path in $`F`$ between $`f,f^{}`$. Since all vertices of $`X_1X_3`$ have neighbours in $`V(P)`$, the minimality of $`F`$ implies that $`F=V(P)`$; and moreover, since all vertices of $`(X_1x_1)X_3`$ are adjacent to $`f`$, the minimality of $`F`$ implies that $`f^{}`$ is the unique neighbour of $`x_1`$ in $`F`$. Similarly $`f`$ is the unique neighbour of $`x_1^{}`$ in $`F`$. Let $`Q`$ be an antipath in $`X_1`$ joining $`x_1,x_1^{}`$. Since $`f`$ has a nonneighbour $`xX_2`$, $`x\text{-}f\text{-}x_1\text{-}Q\text{-}x_1^{}`$ is an antipath, and so $`Q`$ has length 1, and hence $`x_1,x_1^{}`$ are nonadjacent. From the minimality of $`F`$, there exists $`x_2X_2`$ with no neighbour in $`Ff`$. If $`x_2`$ is also nonadjacent to $`f`$, then $`x_2\text{-}x_1\text{-}f^{}\text{-}P\text{-}f\text{-}x_1^{}\text{-}x_2`$ is a hole of length $`6`$, and any member of $`X_3`$ has three consecutive neighbours on it, contrary to $`G_{11}`$. But then $`x_1`$ has two consecutive neighbours on the hole $`x_1^{}\text{-}f\text{-}P\text{-}f^{}\text{-}x_1\text{-}x_2\text{-}x_1^{}`$, and this hole has length $`>4`$, contrary to 24.6. This proves 24.7.

Now we can complete the proof of 24.1, and hence of 13.5 and therefore of 1.2 and 1.1, as follows.

Proof of 24.1. Let $`G_{11}`$, admitting no balanced skew partition. Suppose that $`G`$ is not bipartite; hence it has a triangle, and so we may choose disjoint nonempty anticonnected sets $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_k`$, complete to each other, with $`k3`$. Choose these with maximal union. Let $`N`$ be the set of all $`X_k`$-complete vertices in $`G`$. Suppose first that $`X_kN=V(G)`$. By 15.2, either $`G`$ is complete (and the theorem holds), or $`\overline{G}`$ has exactly two components, both with $`2`$ vertices (and therefore $`G`$ is bipartite and again the theorem holds).

So we may assume that $`X_kNV(G)`$. By 15.2, the set $`V(G)(X_kN)`$ ($`=F`$ say) is connected and every vertex of $`N`$ has a neighbour in it, and in particular, all vertices of $`X_1X_2`$ have a neighbour in it. By 24.7, some vertex $`vF`$ is complete to two of $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$. We may assume that $`v`$ is complete to $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_i`$ say where $`2ik`$, and not complete to $`X_{i+1},\mathrm{},X_k`$. Define

$$X_{i+1}^{}=X_{i+1}\text{-}\mathrm{}\text{-}X_k\{v\};$$

then the sets $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_i,X_{i+1}^{}`$ violate the optimality of the choice of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_k`$. This proves 24.1.

## 25 Acknowledgements

We worked on pieces of this with several other people, and we would particularly like to thank Jim Geelen, Bruce Reed, Chunwei Song and Carsten Thomassen for their help.

We would also like to acknowledge our debt to Michele Conforti, Gérard Cornuéjols and Kristina Vušković; their pioneering work was very important to us, and several of their ideas were seminal for this paper. In particular, they made the basic conjecture 1.2, and suggested that Berge graphs containing wheels should have skew partitions induced by the wheels, and Vušković convinced us that prisms were interesting, and a theorem like 13.4 should exist. In addition, they proved a sequence of steadily improving theorems, saying that any counterexample to the strong perfect graph conjecture must contain subgraphs of certain kinds (wheels and parachutes), and those gave us a great incentive to work from the other end, proving that minimum counterexamples cannot contain subgraphs of certain kinds.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the American Institute of Mathematics, who supported two of us full-time for six months to work on this project.