The reconstruction conjecture
Is a graph determined by its vertex-deleted subgraphs?
▸Motivation
Kelly and Ulam, 1942. Given the multiset of subgraphs obtained by deleting one vertex at a time — without knowing which vertex was deleted — can the graph be recovered?
Verified for all graphs on at most eleven vertices, and known for trees, disconnected graphs, and regular graphs. The three-vertex minimum is necessary: the two graphs on two vertices have the same deck.
Kelly 1942; Ulam 1960. Verified to eleven vertices.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib.Combinatorics.SimpleGraph.Finite
namespace Conjectura.GT005
/-- Kelly and Ulam, 1942: is a graph on at least three vertices determined, up to
isomorphism, by the multiset of its vertex-deleted subgraphs? Verified for all graphs
on at most eleven vertices. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∀ (n : ℕ), 3 ≤ n → ∀ G H : SimpleGraph (Fin n),
(∀ v : Fin n, ∃ w : Fin n,
Nonempty ((G.induce {x | x ≠ v}) ≃g (H.induce {x | x ≠ w}))) →
Nonempty (G ≃g H)
end Conjectura.GT005▸Definition2
▸Related work0
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem GT005 — The reconstruction conjecture
Is a graph determined by its vertex-deleted subgraphs?
## Environment (fixed — do not assume anything newer)
- Lean toolchain: `leanprover/lean4:v4.33.0-rc1`
- Mathlib: `v4.33.0-rc1`
If a lemma you want does not exist in that Mathlib, prove it inline instead of
importing something newer.
## The exact statement I must prove
```lean
theorem solution : ∀ (n : ℕ), 3 ≤ n → ∀ G H : SimpleGraph (Fin n), ... → Nonempty (G ≃g H) := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.GT005.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.GT005.goal := by
sorry
end Submission
```
## The Lean definitions of every term in this problem
These are the actual definitions your proof will be checked against. Do not
substitute your own version of any of them.
### Nonempty
abbrev
```lean
Nonempty
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### induce
def
```lean
G.induce
```
Defined in Mathlib.
## Rules — submissions violating these are rejected automatically
1. **Do not change the name or type of `solution`.** It must satisfy the
statement above exactly.
2. **Do not redefine or shadow anything from the problem's Statement module.**
Declaring your own `goal`, or redefining a name it depends on, produces a
proof of a *different* statement and is rejected. This is the single most
common rejection.
3. **No `sorry`** anywhere, including in helper lemmas. It surfaces as the
axiom `sorryAx` and is detected transitively through imports.
4. **No `native_decide`** — it surfaces as `Lean.ofReduceBool` and is not
accepted, because it trusts compiled code rather than the kernel.
5. Only these axioms are permitted: `propext`, `Classical.choice`,
`Quot.sound`.
6. Follow Mathlib style: hypotheses left of the colon, explicit types,
`snake_case` theorem names, `UpperCamelCase` types.
## What I want from you
Here is my argument in informal mathematics:
> [PASTE YOUR PROOF SKETCH HERE]
Turn it into Lean 4 that compiles under the environment above and satisfies the
statement exactly. Where you are unsure a lemma exists in this Mathlib version,
say so explicitly rather than guessing a name.Submissions are not open yet
Conjectura is in beta. You can read every statement, every definition and the Lean behind them, and download the exact files the checker uses — but proofs are not being accepted yet.
The reason is a deliberate order of operations. Accepting a proof means running a stranger’s code and standing behind a verdict, and no statement here yet carries a researcher’s name. A machine-checked answer to a question nobody has vouched for is worth very little, so the vouching comes first.
The English write-ups are also switched off during the beta. Nothing on this page is generated by a model.
Discussion
- Nothing yet.
Sign in to take part.