TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Bisimplicial vertices in even-hole-free graphs” (Bisimplicial vertices in even-hole-free graphs (2008) 98(6) (1119–1164), (S0095895608000087), (10.1016/j.jctb.2007.12.006))
AU - Addario-Berry, Louigi
AU - Chudnovsky, Maria
AU - Havet, Frédéric
AU - Reed, Bruce
AU - Seymour, Paul
PY - 2020/5
Y1 - 2020/5
N2 - An even-hole-free graph is a graph with no induced cycle of even length. A vertex of a graph is bisimplicial if the set of its neighbours is the union of two cliques. Reed conjectured in [3] that every nonnull even-hole-free graph has a bisimplicial vertex. The authors published a paper [1] in which they claimed a proof, but there is a serious mistake in that paper, recently brought to our attention by Rong Wu. The error in [1] is in the last line of the proof of theorem 3.1 of that paper: we say “it follows that [Formula presented], and so v is bisimplicial in G”; and this is not correct, since cliques of [Formula presented] may not be cliques of G. Unfortunately, the flawed theorem 3.1 is fundamental to much of the remainder of the paper, and we have not been able to fix the error (although we still believe 3.1 to be true). Thus, this paper does not prove Reed's conjecture after all. Two of us (Chudnovsky and Seymour) claim to have a proof of Reed's conjecture using a different method [2].
AB - An even-hole-free graph is a graph with no induced cycle of even length. A vertex of a graph is bisimplicial if the set of its neighbours is the union of two cliques. Reed conjectured in [3] that every nonnull even-hole-free graph has a bisimplicial vertex. The authors published a paper [1] in which they claimed a proof, but there is a serious mistake in that paper, recently brought to our attention by Rong Wu. The error in [1] is in the last line of the proof of theorem 3.1 of that paper: we say “it follows that [Formula presented], and so v is bisimplicial in G”; and this is not correct, since cliques of [Formula presented] may not be cliques of G. Unfortunately, the flawed theorem 3.1 is fundamental to much of the remainder of the paper, and we have not been able to fix the error (although we still believe 3.1 to be true). Thus, this paper does not prove Reed's conjecture after all. Two of us (Chudnovsky and Seymour) claim to have a proof of Reed's conjecture using a different method [2].
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079200326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85079200326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jctb.2020.02.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jctb.2020.02.001
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85079200326
VL - 142
SP - 374
EP - 375
JO - Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B
JF - Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B
SN - 0095-8956
ER -