Edge ideals of gapfree graphs with matching number 3

Note that since r \ge 2, xy \shortmid u_j. Let c \in N_H(y) and set u_k=\frac{u_j(cy)}{xy}. By Ordering 1.5, u_k \in S_\ell for some \ell<r, so u_k < u_j. In particular, (u_k:u_j) \in J. By definition, (u_k:u_j) = c, so c \in J. If c \in N_H(x) the same argument holds using u_k=\frac{u_j(cx)}{xy}.

Assume 1 \le r \le t-1. Then u_i=m(xy)^{r-1} and u_j=n(xy)^{r-1} where m,n \in \mathcal{G}(I(H)^{t-r+1}). Since r \le t-1, we have 2 \le t-r+1 \le t, so I(H)^{t-r+1} has a linear quotients ordering. Thus there exists a monomial w \in I(H)^{t-r+1} with w < n and (w:n) linear dividing (m:n). Set u_k=w(xy)^{r-1} and notice that u_k\in S_s for some s\le r. If s<r, then u_k<u_j since earlier S-sets come first. If s=r, then u_k<u_j because the relative order inside S_r is inherited from the order of I(H)^{t-r+1}. Since (u_k:u_j)=(w:n) and (u_i:u_j)=(m:n), the result follows.

Now assume r=t. If (u_i:u_j) is linear, the result holds with u_k=u_i. If (u_i:u_j) is not linear, then by the definition of S_t, we have (u_i:u_j)=ab for some ab \in E(H). If b=x or b=y, then a \in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y) and the result follows from Lemma 1.7. Otherwise, ab and xy are disjoint edges in G and since G is gapfree, either a or b is in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y) and again the result follows from Lemma 1.7.

Let u_j be fixed. We show that J=((u_1,\dots ,u_{j-1}):u_j) is generated by variables. To do this, we show that if u_i<u_j, then there exists u_k<u_j such that (u_k:u_j) is linear and (u_k:u_j) \mid (u_i:u_j). Note that if j \le s_1 or equivalently if u_j \in S_1, the result follows from Lemma 1.8. So, we assume j \geq s_1+1.

Assume u_j \in S_2 and i < j. If u_i \in S_2, then the result follows from Lemma 1.8. Suppose u_i\in S_1 and let u_i=(cd)(ef) be an optimal factorization. Since G is gapfree, either \{c,d\} \cap \{x,y\} \ne \emptyset or there is an edge in G connecting \{c,d\} to \{x,y\}. A similar statement holds for \{e,f\}. In either case, without loss of generality and by the choice of optimal factorization, we can assume c,e \in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y) \subseteq J and c,e \notin \{x,y\}. If c or e divides (u_i:u_j), then the result follows from Lemma 1.7. Therefore, we may assume u_j=(ce)(xy). Then either u_i:u_j is of degree one, or d,f\notin \{x,y\}. Since there is nothing to show in the first case, let us assume that d,f\notin \{x,y\}. If c\in N_H(x), then u_k=(ef)(cx)\in S_1 is the desired generator. Similarly, if c\in N_H(y), then u_k=(ef)(cy)\in S_1 satisfies the required condition.

Next assume u_j \in S_3, so u_j = (xy)^2. If u_i \in S_2 then u_i = (cd)(xy) for some \{c,d\}\in E(H)\subset E(G). Now since G is gapfree, then without loss of generality, c \in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y). Then (u_i:u_j) is either linear or a multiple of c, in which case the result follows from Lemma 1.7. Finally, assume u_i \in S_1. As above, we may assume u_i=(cd)(ef) with c,e \in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y). If d or f is x or y, then (u_i:u_j) is either linear, so u_k=u_i, or a multiple of c or e, in which case the result follows from Lemma 1.7. If d,f \ne x,y, then (u_i:u_j) = cdef, which is a multiple of c \in N_H(x) \cup N_H(y) and the result again follows from Lemma 1.7.

We prove the result by induction on t. When t=2, the claim follows from Lemma 1.9.

Let S_1,\dots,S_{t+1} be the S-sets of I(G)^t and let \mathcal S_1,\dots,\mathcal S_t be the S-sets of I(G)^{t-1}. Let u_j be fixed. We prove that J=((u_1,\dots ,u_{j-1}):u_j) is generated by variables by showing that for any u_i < u_j there exists a u_k < u_j with (u_k:u_j) linear and dividing (u_i:u_j). If u_i, u_j \in S_r for some r, then the result follows from Lemma 1.8. So, we may assume that u_i \in S_r and u_j \in S_p for some r<p and p \ge 2. By Lemma 1.7 we also assume that (u_i:u_j) has degree at least 2 and is not divisible by any element of N_H(x) \cup N_H(y). Thus it suffices to show the inductive step under these assumptions. To do so, we prove the following stronger statement by induction on t.

Claim. Suppose u_i\in S_r and u_j\in S_p with r<p. If (u_i:u_j) is not linear and is not divisible by any element of N_H(x)\cup N_H(y), then there exists a generator u_k\in S_s, with s<p, such that (u_k:u_j) is linear and (u_k:u_j)\mid (u_i:u_j).

Note that when t=2, the base case remains true under the stronger assumptions of the claim by Remark 1.10. Now assume t\ge 3 and that the claim holds for t-1.

Since u_i\in S_r and u_j\in S_p, choose optimal factorizations

where f_1,\dots ,f_{t-r+1}\in E(H) and e_1,\dots ,e_{t-p+1}\in E(H).

First, suppose r\geq 2. By Lemma 1.6, we have \frac{u_i}{xy}\in {\mathcal S}_{r-1} and \frac{u_j}{xy}\in {\mathcal S}_{p-1}. Moreover, (\frac{u_i}{xy}: \frac{u_j}{xy})=(u_i:u_j). By the inductive hypothesis for t-1, there exists an element \hat{u}\in{\mathcal S}_{s} with s<p-1 such that (\hat{u}:\frac{u_j}{xy}) is a variable dividing (\frac{u_i}{xy}:\frac{u_j}{xy})=(u_i:u_j). By Lemma 1.6, we have \hat{u} xy \in S_{s'} for some s'\le s+1< p. Therefore, \hat{u} xy < u_j and (\hat{u} xy : u_j)= (\hat{u} :\frac{u_j}{xy} ). Thus, \hat{u} xy is the desired earlier generator.

Now assume r=1. We prove the claim in this case by a secondary induction on d=\deg(u_i:u_j)\ge 2. Since r=1, u_i=f_1\cdots f_t \in S_1. Thus we will show that for u_j \in S_p with p \ge 2 and for every u\in S_1, if \deg(u:u_j)\ge 2 and (u:u_j) is not divisible by any element of N_H(x)\cup N_H(y), then there exists a generator u_k\in S_s with s<p such that (u_k:u_j) is linear and (u_k:u_j)\mid (u:u_j).

We first isolate a reduction that will be used several times below.

Common edge reduction. Suppose that u\in S_1 and that an edge e\in E(H) occurs both in a factorization of u and in the chosen optimal factorization of u_j. Assume further that (u:u_j) is not linear and that no variable in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y) divides (u:u_j). Then there exists a generator u_k\in S_s, with s<p, such that (u_k:u_j) is linear and (u_k:u_j)\mid (u:u_j). Indeed, by part (2a) of Lemma 1.6, we have \frac{u}{e}\in\mathcal S_1 and \frac{u_j}{e}\in\mathcal S_p. Moreover, \left(\frac{u}{e}:\frac{u_j}{e}\right)=(u:u_j). The induction hypothesis for t-1 therefore gives a generator \widetilde u\in\mathcal S_s, with s<p, such that \left(\widetilde u:\frac{u_j}{e}\right) is linear and divides (u:u_j). Set u_k=e\widetilde u. Since e\neq xy, part (2b) of Lemma 1.6 gives u_k\in S_{s'} for some s'\leq s<p. Thus u_k<u_j and (u_k:u_j) = \left(\widetilde u:\frac{u_j}{e}\right). Hence u_k has the required properties.

Applying the common edge reduction to u=u_i, we may assume from now on that

Set A=(u_i:u_j) and B=(u_j:u_i). For each variable w, write \alpha_w=\deg_w(A) and \beta_w=\deg_w(B). Since

for every w, and u_i and u_j have the same total degree, we have \deg A=\deg B=d\geq 2.

We use the following degree calculation repeatedly and we refer to it as (\ast): Suppose that f is an edge occurring in the chosen factorization of u_i, that g is another edge of H, and that u=\frac{u_i g}{f}. Then, for every variable w,

In particular, if \deg_w(g)-\deg_w(f)\leq \beta_w for every variable w, then \deg_w(u:u_j)\leq \alpha_w for every variable w. Therefore (u:u_j)\mid A.

Since G is gapfree, each edge f_k either has an endpoint in \{x,y\} or is connected to the edge \{x,y\}. So, we can write f_k= a_kb_k with a_k\in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y). Since no element of N_H(x)\cup N_H(y) divides A, after relabeling the f_k’s, we may write A=b_1\cdots b_d where none of the b_1,\ldots, b_d lies in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y).

To complete the proof, we consider the following cases based on the form of B.

Case 1. Suppose B has a variable divisor outside \{x,y\}, say v \in \operatorname{supp} (B) with v\notin \{x,y\}. Since v occurs in u_j outside the factors xy, after relabeling we may write e_1=vz. Since v\mid B, we have \beta_v\geq1.

First suppose that z\nmid u_i. Set u=\frac{u_i e_1}{f_1}\in S_1. We use (\ast) with g=e_1=vz and f=f_1=a_1b_1. Since z\nmid u_i while z\mid u_j, we have \beta_z=\deg_z(u_j)-\deg_z(u_i)\geq1. For w=v or w=z, we have

and for every other variable w,

Since the conditions in (\ast) are met, we have (u:u_j)\mid A. If (u:u_j) is linear, then u is the desired earlier generator. Otherwise, since (u:u_j)\mid A, it is not divisible by any variable in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y). Since u and u_j share the edge e_1 in their chosen factorizations, the common edge reduction therefore gives the desired earlier generator.

Now suppose that z\mid u_i. Choose an edge f_q in the chosen factorization of u_i that contains z and set u=\frac{u_i e_1}{f_q}\in S_1. Since both e_1 and f_q contain z, we have \deg_z(e_1)-\deg_z(f_q)=0. The only variable whose exponent can increase under this replacement from u_i to u is v. So, \deg_v(e_1)-\deg_v(f_q)\leq1\leq\beta_v. For all other variables the exponent change is nonpositive. Hence (\ast) again gives (u:u_j)\mid A. If (u:u_j) is linear, we are done. Otherwise, the common edge reduction applied to the common edge e_1 gives the desired earlier generator. This completes Case 1.

Case 2. Assume that \operatorname{supp} (B) \subseteq \{x,y\} and p\ge 3. We choose an edge f_q in the factorization of u_i as follows.

• If x,y\in\operatorname{supp}(B), choose any f_q.

• If B=x^d, then \beta_y=0, so \deg_y(u_i)\geq\deg_y(u_j). Since the chosen optimal factorization of u_j contains (xy)^{p-1}, we have \deg_y(u_j)\geq p-1>0. Thus y\mid u_i and we choose f_q containing y.

• Similarly, if B=y^d, we choose f_q containing x.

Set u=\frac{u_i(xy)}{f_q}. This factorization of u uses one copy of xy. So u\in S_{s'} for some s'\leq2. Since p\geq3, we have s'<p. Hence u<u_j.

We next verify that (u:u_j)\mid A. If x,y\in\operatorname{supp}(B), then \beta_x,\beta_y\geq1. For w\notin\{x,y\}, replacing the factor f_q by xy cannot increase the w exponent since

For w\in \{x,y\}, the exponent can increase by at most one and \deg_w(xy)-\deg_w(f_q)\leq1\leq\beta_w. Thus

for every variable w. Thus the conditions in (\ast) hold and (u:u_j)\mid A.

If B=x^d, then f_q contains y. So replacing f_q by xy does not increase the y exponent. The only variable whose exponent can increase is x and

Thus (\ast) again holds. The case B=y^d is symmetric. Therefore, in every case, (u:u_j)\mid A.

If (u:u_j) is linear, then u is the desired earlier generator. Suppose otherwise. Since (u:u_j)\mid A, it is not divisible by any variable in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y). From the explicit factorization of u, we have \frac{u}{xy}=\frac{u_i}{f_q} \in {\mathcal S}_1. Also, by Lemma 1.6, we have \frac{u_j}{xy}\in{\mathcal S}_{p-1}. In addition, \left(\frac{u}{xy}:\frac{u_j}{xy}\right)=(u:u_j). Since 1<p-1, the induction hypothesis for t-1 gives a generator \hat u\in{\mathcal S}_s with s<p-1 such that \left(\hat u:\frac{u_j}{xy}\right) is linear and divides (u:u_j). By Lemma 1.6, we have \hat u(xy)\in S_{s''} for some s''\leq s+1<p. Hence \hat u(xy)<u_j and (\hat u(xy):u_j) = \left(\hat u:\frac{u_j}{xy}\right). Thus \hat u(xy) is the desired earlier generator. This completes Case 2.

Case 3. Suppose that p=2 and \operatorname{supp} (B) \subseteq \{x,y\}.

First suppose that x,y\in\operatorname{supp}(B). Recall that f_1=a_1b_1 such that a_1\in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y) and b_1\mid A. Choose z\in\{x,y\} such that a_1z\in E(H) and set u=\frac{u_i(a_1z)}{f_1} =\frac{u_i z}{b_1}. Then u\in S_1 and hence u<u_j.

Since b_1\mid A and z\mid B while \gcd(A,B)=1, we have b_1\neq z. The replacement decreases the b_1 exponent by one, increases the z exponent by one, and leaves every other exponent unchanged. In other words, we have \deg_{b_1}(u:u_j)=\alpha_{b_1}-1 while \deg_z(u:u_j) = \max\{-\beta_z+1,0\} because \beta_z\geq1. For every other variable w, we have \deg_w(u:u_j)=\alpha_w. Consequently, (u:u_j)=\frac{A}{b_1}. In particular, \deg(u:u_j)=d-1.

If d=2, then (u:u_j) is linear and u is the desired generator. If d\geq3, then 2\leq\deg(u:u_j)=d-1<d. Moreover, (u:u_j)\mid A, so it is not divisible by any variable in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y). The secondary induction hypothesis applied to the pair (u,u_j) therefore yields a generator u_k\in S_s with s<p such that (u_k:u_j) is linear and divides (u:u_j). Since (u:u_j)\mid A, this gives the desired generator.

The remaining cases to consider are B=x^d and B=y^d. By symmetry, it is enough to treat B=x^d. In this case, \deg_x(u_j)=\deg_x(u_i)+d. Since d\geq2 and the chosen factorization of u_j contains only one copy of x coming from the factor xy, at least one of the H edge factors of u_j must contain x. After relabeling, write e_1=xc.

Since \operatorname{supp}(B)=\{x\}, we have \beta_c=0. As c\mid u_j, it follows that \deg_c(u_i)\geq\deg_c(u_j)\geq1. Choose an edge f_q in the factorization of u_i that contains c and set u=\frac{u_i e_1}{f_q}. Then u\in S_1. So u<u_j. Also, notice that u and u_j share the edge e_1.

Because both e_1 and f_q contain c, the replacement does not increase the c exponent. The only variable whose exponent can increase is x and

Thus the conditions in (\ast) hold. So, we have (u:u_j)\mid A. If (u:u_j) is linear, then u is the desired generator. Otherwise, (u:u_j) is not divisible by any variable in N_H(x)\cup N_H(y), and the common edge reduction applied to e_1 gives the desired earlier generator. This completes the case B=x^d. The case B=y^d follows by interchanging x and y.

Suppose that |V(G)|\geq 8. By [EZE, Theorem 5], G has a dominating path x-y-z. Since no clique dominates G, we have xz\notin E(G), and there are vertices x_1,z_1 such that xx_1,zz_1\in E(G) and yx_1,zx_1,xz_1,yz_1\notin E(G). Set

Every vertex of Z is adjacent to z but not to x or y. We have p,r\geq 1, q\geq 0, and p+q+r\geq 5.

We first record three consequences of gapfreeness. The set Z is independent since an edge inside Z would form a gap with xy. Applying gapfreeness to xx_i and zz_j shows that every vertex of X not adjacent to z is adjacent to all of Z; in particular, x_1z_j\in E(G) for every j. Applying gapfreeness to yy_i and x_1z_j shows that every vertex of Y not adjacent to x_1 is adjacent to all of Z.

Case 1: q=0. No vertex x_i is adjacent to both z and a vertex z_j\in Z since otherwise the triangle x_i z z_j dominates G. Thus, with A=X\cap N_G(z) and B=X\setminus A, there are no edges between A and Z, while every vertex of B is adjacent to all of Z. Consequently, N_G(z_j)=\{z\}\cup B for every j. Since G has no duplicate vertices, r=1 and p\geq 4.

There are no edges between A and B since an edge ab with a\in A and b\in B would give the dominating triangle xab. Also, no b\in B is adjacent to y since xyb would be a dominating triangle. Since x_1\in B, an edge from A to y, or an edge inside A, would form a gap with x_1z_1. Finally, an edge inside B would form a gap with yz. Therefore X is independent and its vertices have only the two possible open neighborhoods \{x,z\} and \{x,z_1\}. Since p\geq 4, two vertices of X are duplicates, a contradiction.

Case 2: q\geq 1. We first show that r=1. Suppose that r\geq 2. If p\geq 2, then \{xx_2,yy_1,zz_2,x_1z_1\} is a matching of size 4, a contradiction. Thus p=1. If a vertex y_i\in Y is adjacent to both x_1 and some z_j, then the triangle x_1y_iz_j dominates G: every vertex of Y is adjacent to x_1 or z_j, every vertex of Z is adjacent to x_1, and x,y,z are adjacent to x_1,y_i,z_j, respectively. Thus each y_i\in Y is adjacent either to x_1 and no vertex of Z, or to all of Z and not to x_1. All vertices of Z therefore have the same open neighborhood, namely

This gives duplicate vertices, a contradiction. Hence r=1 and p+q\geq 4.

Suppose that p\geq 2. We claim that there are no edges from X to Y\cup\{z\}, and every vertex of X is adjacent to z_1. If p\geq 3, an edge x_i z, necessarily with i\neq 1, gives the matching \{x_i z,x_1z_1,xx_j,yy_1\} of size 4 for j\notin\{1,i\}. Thus no vertex of X is adjacent to z, so every vertex of X is adjacent to z_1 by the second observation. An edge x_i u, with u\in Y, would then give the matching \{x_i u,xx_j,x_kz_1,yz\} of size 4 for distinct j,k\neq i.

If p=2, then q\geq 2. An edge x_i u with u\in Y gives the matching \{x_i u,xx_h,yv,zz_1\} of size 4 where h\neq i and v\in Y\setminus\{u\}. Thus there are no X–Y edges. The third observation now implies that every vertex of Y is adjacent to z_1. An edge x_2z would then give the matching \{x_2z,xx_1,yy_1,y_2z_1\} of size 4. Hence no vertex of X is adjacent to z and both vertices of X are adjacent to z_1. This proves the claim.

There are also no edges from X to y since an edge x_iy would give the dominating triangle xyx_i. Moreover, X is independent since an edge inside X would form a gap with yz. Hence N_G(x_i)=\{x,z_1\} for every i, giving duplicate vertices, a contradiction. Therefore p=1 and q\geq 3.

The set Y is independent since an edge y_i y_j would give the matching \{y_i y_j,yy_k,xx_1,zz_1\} of size 4 for k\notin\{i,j\}. Each vertex of Y is adjacent to at least one of x_1,z_1, but not both since x_1y_i z_1 would be a dominating triangle as above. Moreover, y_i z\in E(G) forces y_i x_1\in E(G) by gapfreeness applied to y_i z and xx_1. Thus the only possible open neighborhoods of vertices of Y are

Since q\geq 3 and no vertices are duplicates, q=3 and all three neighborhoods occur. Choose distinct u,v,w\in Y with uz,vz_1\in E(G). Then \{uz,vz_1,yw,xx_1\} is a matching of size 4, a final contradiction.

The case r=1 is immediate. For r\geq 2, write V(K_r)=\{x_1,\ldots,x_r\}. By minimality, each x_i has a vertex y_i\notin V(K_r) with N_G(y_i)\cap V(K_r)=\{x_i\}. These vertices are distinct, so \{x_iy_i:1\leq i\leq r\} is a matching. Hence r\leq\nu(G)=3.

Suppose |V(G)|\geq 8. Let D=\{x,y,z\} be a minimal dominating triangle. Choose x to maximize |N_G(x)\setminus D| among the vertices of D, and set X=N_G(x)\setminus D. Among the two remaining vertices of D, choose y to maximize |N_G(y)\setminus(D\cup X)|. Set Y=N_G(y)\setminus(D\cup X) and Z=V(G)\setminus(D\cup X\cup Y). Write X=\{x_1,\ldots,x_p\}, Y=\{y_1,\ldots,y_q\}, and Z=\{z_1,\ldots,z_r\}. Every vertex of Z is adjacent to z but not to x or y. By the choice of x, we have p\geq q. Every vertex of Z is a neighbor of z outside D\cup X, so the choice of y gives q\geq r.

By minimality of D, we may choose the labels x_1,y_1,z_1 so that

Indeed, \{y,z\} does not dominate G but it dominates every vertex of D because D is a triangle. Thus some vertex outside D is adjacent to neither y nor z. Since D dominates G, this vertex must be adjacent to x, and we may label it x_1. The same argument applied to \{x,z\} and \{x,y\} gives y_1 and z_1, respectively. By the definitions of the partition, x_1\in X, y_1\in Y, and z_1\in Z. So all three sets are nonempty. Consequently, p\geq q\geq r\geq 1. In addition, |V(G)|\geq 8 gives p+q+r\geq 5.

We first show that r=1. Notice that Z is independent since an edge inside Z would form a gap with xy. Suppose that r\geq 2. Then p,q\geq 2. Since z_1 is not a whisker and its only neighbor in D is z, it must have a neighbor in X\cup Y. If x_iz_1\in E(G), choose k\neq i in [p]. Then \{x_iz_1,xx_k,zz_2,yy_1\} is a matching of size 4. Similarly, if y_iz_1\in E(G), choose k\neq i in [q]. Then \{y_iz_1,yy_k,zz_2,xx_1\} is a matching of size 4. Both possibilities contradict \nu(G)=3. Therefore r=1.

Case 1: q\geq 2. Then p\geq 2. There are no X–Y edges: an edge x_iy_j would give the matching \{x_iy_j,xx_k,yy_\ell,zz_1\} of size 4 where k\neq i and \ell\neq j. Consequently, Y is independent since an edge inside Y would form a gap with xx_1.

Since y_1 is not a whisker and is adjacent to neither x nor z, we have y_1z_1\in E(G). Gapfreeness applied to xx_1 and y_1z_1 then gives x_1z_1\in E(G) since xy_1,xz_1,x_1y_1\notin E(G). If y_2z\in E(G), then \{y_2z,yy_1,xx_2,x_1z_1\} is a matching of size 4, a contradiction. Thus both y_1 and y_2 have neighbors only in \{y,z_1\}. Since neither is a whisker, N_G(y_1)=N_G(y_2)=\{y,z_1\}, contradicting the absence of duplicate vertices.

Case 2: q=1. Then r=1 and p\geq 3. The set X is independent since an edge x_ix_j would give the matching \{x_ix_j,xx_k,yy_1,zz_1\} of size 4 where k\notin\{i,j\}.

Since X is independent and x_1y,x_1z\notin E(G), the only possible neighbors of x_1 other than x are y_1 and z_1. As x_1 is not a whisker, it is adjacent to at least one of them. Interchanging y,z and y_1,z_1 if necessary, assume x_1y_1\in E(G). This interchange preserves the partition since X is unchanged and the only vertices outside D\cup X are y_1,z_1 with zy_1,yz_1\notin E(G).

We next determine the possible neighbors of x_2 and x_3. For i\in\{2,3\}, let j be the other index. Neither x_iy nor x_iz_1 is an edge: these two possible edges would give the matchings \{x_iy,x_1y_1,xx_j,zz_1\} and \{x_iz_1,x_1y_1,xx_j,yz\} of size 4, respectively. Since X is independent, the only possible neighbors of x_i other than x are y_1 and z. As x_i is not a whisker, it is adjacent to at least one of them. If x_iz\in E(G), gapfreeness applied to x_iz and x_1y_1 forces x_iy_1\in E(G) since x_ix_1,zx_1,zy_1\notin E(G). Thus both x_2 and x_3 are adjacent to y_1 and each has open neighborhood either \{x,y_1\} or \{x,y_1,z\}.

Finally, consider the neighborhood of x_1. If x_1z_1\in E(G), then \{x_1z_1,x_2y_1,xx_3,yz\} is a matching of size 4. Hence x_1z_1\notin E(G) and N_G(x_1)=\{x,y_1\}. If either x_2 or x_3 is not adjacent to z, it has the same open neighborhood as x_1. Otherwise, N_G(x_2)=N_G(x_3)=\{x,y_1,z\}. In either case, two vertices are duplicates, a contradiction.

Both cases are impossible, so |V(G)|\leq 7.

Gapfreeness allows at most one component containing an edge. Suppose H is not co-chordal. Fröberg’s characterization [F] and the regularity bound give 2<\mathrm{reg}~ I(H)\leq\nu(H)+1\leq 3, so \mathrm{reg}~ I(H)=3=\nu(H)+1. By [TNT, Theorem 11], the nontrivial component is a pentagon or a Cameron–Walker graph. The latter has induced matching number equal to its matching number, namely 2, contradicting gapfreeness. Thus the nontrivial component is a pentagon.

Suppose |V(G)|\geq 8. We show that G is co-chordal. Set

and let H=G[X\cup Y\cup Z]. By minimality, X,Y\neq\emptyset: if either set were empty, one of x,y would dominate G alone. Write p=|X|, q=|Y|, and r=|Z|, interchanging x and y if necessary so that p\geq q. We have p+q+r\geq 6. The graph H is gapfree and \nu(H)\leq 2 since a matching of size 3 in H could be extended by xy. Every vertex of X\cup Y has a neighbor in H since no whiskers are attached to x or y.

We use the following observation throughout the proof.

Matching observation. If M is a matching of size 2 in H, its uncovered vertices form an independent set contained entirely in X or entirely in Y. Indeed, there are at least two uncovered vertices since |V(H)|\geq 6. They are independent since an edge between two of them would extend M to a matching of size 3 in H. If uncovered vertices a\in X and b\in Y exist, then M\cup\{xa,yb\} is a matching of size 4. If an uncovered vertex z\in Z exists, choose another uncovered vertex u. Since \{x,y\} dominates G, we can match u to one of x,y. The vertex z is adjacent to both, so it can be matched to the other. These two edges extend M to a matching of size 4. Both possibilities are impossible.

Case 1: q,r\geq 2. We first show that X is independent. Suppose x_1x_2\in E(G). An edge of H from y_i\in Y to a vertex outside \{x_1,x_2\} would, together with x_1x_2, leave a vertex of Z uncovered. Thus the matching observation and absence of whiskers give \emptyset\neq N_H(y_i)\subseteq\{x_1,x_2\}. Choose distinct y_1,y_2\in Y, relabeling x_1,x_2 so that x_1y_1\in E(G). An edge x_2y_2 would give the matching \{x_1y_1,x_2y_2,xz_1,yz_2\} of size 4. Hence N_H(y_2)=\{x_1\}. Interchanging y_1,y_2 gives N_H(y_1)=\{x_1\} as well. Since vertices of Y are adjacent to y but not x, we have N_G(y_1)=N_G(y_2)=\{y,x_1\}, giving duplicates, a contradiction. Thus X is independent.

We next show that there are no X–Y edges. Suppose x_1y_1\in E(G) and choose x_2\in X\setminus\{x_1\}. If x_2 had a neighbor u\neq y_1 in H, the independence of X would make \{x_1y_1,x_2u\} a matching in H. It covers at most one vertex of Z, leaving another uncovered since r\geq 2. This contradicts the matching observation. Hence N_H(x_2)=\{y_1\} since x_2 is not a whisker. Applying the same argument to the edge x_2y_1 and the vertex x_1 gives N_H(x_1)=\{y_1\}. Thus N_G(x_1)=N_G(x_2)=\{x,y_1\}, giving duplicates, a contradiction. With no X–Y edges, an edge inside Y would form a gap with xx_1, so Y is independent as well.

Every vertex of X\cup Y now has a neighbor in Z. Choose x_1z_1\in E(G). For y_i\in Y, an edge y_iz_j with j\neq 1 would give the matching \{x_1z_1,y_iz_j,xx_2,yy_k\} of size 4 where x_2\neq x_1 and y_k\neq y_i, a contradiction. Thus N_G(y_i)=\{y,z_1\} for all y_i\in Y, again giving duplicates. Therefore this case is not possible.

Case 2: q\geq 2 and r\leq 1. Then p\geq 3. There is an X–Y edge. Otherwise, any edge inside X would form a gap with yy_1, so X would be independent. Its vertices would then be whiskers if r=0, or would all have open neighborhood \{x,z\} if Z=\{z\}, giving duplicate vertices.

Let B be the graph on X\cup Y consisting only of the X–Y edges of G. Edges of G within X or within Y are omitted, so B is bipartite by construction. We claim that all edges of B share an endpoint. If x_1y_1,x_2y_2 were disjoint edges of B, the matching observation would force r=0 and q=2 since an uncovered vertex x_3\in X exists. Thus p\geq 4. Set A=X\setminus\{x_1,x_2\}. The matching observation shows that A is independent. For a\in A, an edge ax_1 would give the matching \{ax_1,x_2y_2,yy_1,xb\} of size 4 for b\in A\setminus\{a\}; similarly, ax_2\notin E(G). Hence each N_H(a) is a nonempty subset of \{y_1,y_2\}. It cannot be the whole pair since then a and y would have the same open neighborhood \{x,y_1,y_2\}, a contradiction. Since vertices of A are not duplicates, A=\{a,b\} with N_H(a)=\{y_1\} and N_H(b)=\{y_2\}. Now x_1x_2\notin E(G) since \{x_1x_2,ay_1,by_2,xy\} would be a matching of size 4. It follows that N_G(x_1) is either \{x,y_1\} or \{x,y_1,y_2\}, making x_1 a duplicate of a or y. This contradiction shows that B has no two disjoint edges. Since B is nonempty and bipartite, all its edges therefore share a common endpoint, proving the claim.

We now consider the location of this common endpoint. Suppose it is x_1\in X, and set A=X\setminus\{x_1\}. There are no edges from A to Y. There are also none to Z: if Z=\{z\} and az\in E(G) for a\in A, choose b\in A\setminus\{a\} and an edge x_1y_i\in E(G). Then \{az,x_1y_i,xb,yy_j\} is a matching of size 4 for j\neq i. Thus every vertex of A has its neighbors in H contained in A\cup\{x_1\}. An edge inside A would form a gap with yy_1, so A is independent. Since its vertices are not whiskers, N_G(a)=\{x,x_1\} for every a\in A. As |A|=p-1\geq 2, this gives duplicate vertices, a contradiction. If the common endpoint lies in Y and q\geq 3, the same argument with X and Y interchanged applies: there are at least two other vertices in Y and at least two vertices in X.

It remains that Y=\{y_1,y_2\} and every X–Y edge is incident to y_1. If y_1y_2\in E(G), gapfreeness applied to y_1y_2 and xx_i gives x_iy_1\in E(G) for every x_i\in X. Moreover, X is independent: if ab\in E(G) with a,b\in X, choose c\in X\setminus\{a,b\} and d\in(X\cup Z)\setminus\{a,b,c\}. These choices are possible because p\geq 3 and p+r\geq 4. Then \{ab,cy_1,xd,yy_2\} is a matching of size 4, a contradiction. Thus every vertex of X has open neighborhood \{x,y_1\}, or \{x,y_1,z\} when Z=\{z\}. As p\geq 3, two are duplicates, a contradiction.

Therefore y_1y_2\notin E(G). Since y_2 is not a whisker, Z=\{z\} and y_2z\in E(G). Again X is independent since an edge ab inside X would give the matching \{ab,y_2z,yy_1,xc\} of size 4 for c\in X\setminus\{a,b\}. Choose a\in X with ay_1\in E(G), which exists since there is an X–Y edge. For b\in X\setminus\{a\}, an edge bz would give the matching \{ay_1,bz,xc,yy_2\} of size 4 for c\in X\setminus\{a,b\}. Thus every vertex of X\setminus\{a\} has open neighborhood \{x,y_1\}. There are at least two such vertices, a contradiction.

Case 3: q=1. Write Y=\{y_1\}. We first show that H is co-chordal. Otherwise, Lemma 2.4 gives a pentagon C and isolated vertices. Since |V(H)|\geq 6, there is an isolated vertex z, which must lie in Z because every vertex of X\cup Y has a neighbor in H. Also, y_1\in V(C) for the same reason. A perfect matching of C-y_1, together with yy_1 and xz, is a matching of size 4, a contradiction. Thus H is co-chordal.

Suppose that G is not co-chordal. Let C be an induced cycle of length at least 4 in \overline G. The vertex x is not on C since its only neighbor in \overline G is y_1. The vertex y must therefore lie on C since otherwise C would lie in the chordal graph \overline H. Write C=y,a,w_1,\ldots,w_s,b,y. Since the neighbors of y in \overline G are exactly the vertices of X, we have a,b\in X. No w_i lies in X since then yw_i would be a chord of C. Thus w_1,\ldots,w_s\in Y\cup Z. Consecutive pairs on C are nonedges of G, while all nonconsecutive pairs are edges of G. If s=1, then ab and yw_1 form a gap. So s\geq 2.

The edges aw_s and bw_1 now form a matching M of size 2 in H. There are at least two uncovered vertices, and the matching observation places them all in X since |Y|=1. Hence every vertex of Y\cup Z is covered by M and must be one of w_1,w_s. If s\geq 3, however, w_2\in Y\cup Z would be uncovered. Thus s=2 and Y\cup Z=\{w_1,w_2\}. The remaining vertices of H are exactly A=X\setminus\{a,b\}. By the matching observation, A is independent, and |A|=|V(H)|-4\geq 2.

The five vertices of C induce a pentagon P in G, with cyclic order y,w_1,b,a,w_2,y. Choose distinct c,d\in A. Suppose that c has a neighbor v on P. Since d\in X, we have xd\in E(G). A perfect matching of P-v, together with cv and xd, is a matching of size 4, a contradiction. Thus c has no neighbor on P. It also has no neighbor in A since A is independent. As V(G)=\{x\}\cup V(P)\cup A and c\in X, it follows that N_G(c)=\{x\}. Thus c is a whisker attached to x, a contradiction. This proves that G is co-chordal.

Suppose |V(G)|\geq 8 and set H=G-x. The graph H is gapfree and has no isolated vertices since such a vertex would be a whisker attached to x in G. Since |V(H)|\geq 7, a matching of size 3 in H would leave an uncovered vertex u. Adjoining xu would then give a matching of size 4 in G. Thus \nu(H)\leq 2. By Lemma 2.4, if H were not co-chordal, it would be a pentagon, contradicting |V(H)|\geq 7. Hence H is co-chordal. Since \overline G is obtained from \overline H by adjoining the isolated vertex x, G is co-chordal as well.

Suppose G is a gapfree graph with \nu(G)=3. We prove this statement by induction on |V(G)|.

If G has a duplicate vertex, a parallel vertex, or a whisker, delete one vertex from the duplicate or parallel pair, or delete the degree one vertex, respectively, to obtain H. The graph H is gapfree. Deleting one vertex decreases the matching number by at most one. So \nu(H)\in\{2,3\}. If \nu(H)=3, the induction hypothesis applies. If \nu(H)=2, Lemma 2.4 shows that H is co-chordal or consists of a pentagon and isolated vertices. In either case, all I(H)^s with s\geq 2 have linear quotients by [HHgtm260, Theorem 10.1.9] and [EFHHKM, Proposition 4.2], respectively. Reintroducing the deleted vertex preserves this property by Lemma 1.1, Lemma 1.2, Theorem 1.11, respectively. Thus we may assume that G is reduced, meaning that it has no duplicate or parallel vertices and no whiskers.

If no clique dominates G, Lemma 2.1 gives |V(G)|\leq 7. Otherwise, choose a minimal dominating clique. Its cardinality is at most 3 by Lemma 2.2. The cases of cardinalities 3, 2, and 1 are handled by Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.5, Lemma 2.6, respectively. Hence either |V(G)|\leq 7 or G is co-chordal. The co-chordal case is already known since all powers of its edge ideal have linear quotients [HHgtm260, Theorem 10.1.9].

It remains to consider reduced, connected, gapfree, non-co-chordal graphs with matching number 3 on at most 7 vertices. The enumeration in Appendix ? gives exactly 26 such graphs up to isomorphism. The verification of the statement for these graphs completes the induction.

Choose u'<u in M^{(s-1)} such that u':u=x. Then e_i \cdot u' appears before e_i \cdot u inside the e_i-block, unless e_i \cdot u' has already appeared in an earlier edge block. In either case, e_i \cdot u' occurs before w=e_i \cdot u in M^{(s)} and (e_i \cdot u'):(e_i u)=u':u=x. Thus x\in \operatorname{set}_s(w).

For s=2, this follows directly from the order M^{(2)}. For the generators supported on \{c,d,g\}, the following earlier witnesses occur in M^{(2)}:

Similarly,

and d^2fg:d^2g^2=f. Thus the three implications hold for s=2.

Now assume s\geq 3. We prove the first implication; the other two are identical. Suppose \operatorname{supp}(u)\subseteq \{c,d,g\}. Since the only edges of G supported on \{c,d,g\} are cd,cg,dg, the first block in which u appears is one of the cd-, cg- or dg-blocks. Thus u=e_i \cdot u' with e_i\in \{cd,cg,dg\} and \operatorname{supp}(u')\subseteq \{c,d,g\}. By induction on s, we have e,f\in \operatorname{set}_{s-1}(u'). Then Lemma 4.2 implies e,f\in \operatorname{set}_s(u).

The proofs of the second and third implications are the same, using the edge sets \{de,df\} and \{dg\}, respectively.

The case i=1 is immediate. We use the phrase “v comes from the xy-block” to mean that v\in A_h^{(s)} with e_h=xy.

We first consider the cases in (2). For i=2, write w=ae\cdot m where m\in \mathcal G(I^{s-1}). Since the ab-block precedes the ae-block, the generator ab\cdot m occurs before w, and (ab\cdot m):w=b. Hence b\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). If b\mid w, then the b-factor cannot come from ab, because w\notin A_1^{(s)}, and it cannot come from bg because ae\cdot bg=ab\cdot eg would again put w in the ab-block. Thus w=ae\cdot bc\cdot m'. The earlier generators ab\cdot ae\cdot m', ab\cdot de\cdot m', ab\cdot cf\cdot m', and ab\cdot eg\cdot m' give quotients a,d,f,g, respectively. Therefore the displayed formula for D_2(w) follows.

Now let v\in A_{<2}^{(s)}, so v=ab\cdot n. If b\nmid w, then b\mid(v:w). Hence v:w\in(D_2(w)). Suppose b\mid w, so w=ae\cdot bc\cdot m' and D_2(w)=\{a,b,d,f,g\}. Since w\notin A_1^{(s)}, we have (ce) m'\notin I^{s-1}. Thus m' contains no edge entirely inside D_2(w); otherwise, using (ce) ab=ae\cdot bc, (ce) af=ae\cdot cf, (ce) bg=bc\cdot eg, (ce) dg=cd\cdot eg or (ce) df=cf\cdot de, we would get (ce) m'\in I^{s-1}, a contradiction. Hence every edge appearing in m' has exactly one endpoint in D_2(w). Since D_2(w) is a vertex cover of G, every edge appearing in n has at least one endpoint in D_2(w). Comparing the number of D_2(w)-variables in n and in (ce) m', and using (ab\cdot n):(ab\cdot (ce) m')=n:((ce) m'), one variable from D_2(w) remains in the quotient. Thus v:w\in(D_2(w)).

The cases i=3,4,5,8,11,12 are checked in the same way. The basic witnesses are as follows: for i=3, the ab- and ae-blocks give b and e; for i=4, the ab-block gives a; for i=5, the ab- and bc-blocks give a and c; for i=8, the af-, bc-, cd-, and cg-blocks give a,b,d,g; for i=11, the af-, cf-, de-, and dg-blocks give a,c,e,g; and for i=12, the ae-, bg-, cg-, and de-blocks give a,b,c,d. Whenever one of the exceptional variables in the displayed branch of D_i(w) divides w, the block condition forces that variable to occur through a later edge, and replacing that later edge by the corresponding earlier edge gives the additional variables listed in D_i(w). Reading through the earlier blocks then shows that every v:w is divisible by one of the variables in the displayed D_i(w). This proves (2).

We now prove (3). For i=6, write w=cd\cdot m. Since every edge containing a or b occurs before the cd-block, we have a,b\nmid w. The generator bc\cdot m occurs before w, and (bc\cdot m):w=b, so b\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). If e\mid w or f\mid w, then replacing the edge containing e by ae or the edge containing f by af, gives an earlier generator whose quotient by w is a. Hence the displayed formula for D_6(w) follows.

For the colon statement when i=6, if e\mid w or f\mid w, then D_6(w)=\{a,b\}. Every earlier block is one of ab,ae,af,bc,bg. So every v\in A_{<6}^{(s)} is divisible by a or b. Since a,b\nmid w, we get v:w\in(a,b)=(D_6(w)). If e,f\nmid w, then D_6(w)=\{b\}. Since a,b,e,f\nmid w, we have \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{c,d,g\}. If v:w\notin(b), then v cannot come from an earlier block whose edge contains b. The only remaining earlier blocks are the ae- and af-blocks, and these give e\mid(v:w) or f\mid(v:w), respectively.

For i=7, write w=cg\cdot m. Again a,b\nmid w. The bg- and cd-blocks give quotients b and d, so b,d\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). If e\mid w or f\mid w, replacing the edge containing e by ae or the edge containing f by af, gives the quotient a. If d\mid w, then the d-factor cannot come from cd, and it also cannot come from de, since cg\cdot de=cd\cdot eg would put w in the cd-block. Thus the d-factor comes from dg or df. The earlier cd-block replacements cg\cdot dg\mapsto cd\cdot cg and cg\cdot df\mapsto cd\cdot cf give quotient c, while cg\cdot dg\mapsto cd\cdot eg and cg\cdot df\mapsto cd\cdot eg give quotient e. This gives the displayed formula for D_7(w).

The colon statement for i=7 is then read block-by-block. Quotients from the ab-, bc-, and bg-blocks are divisible by b. Quotients from the cd-block are divisible by d, unless d\mid w, in which case they are accounted for by c or e. Quotients from the ae- and af-blocks are divisible by e or f, unless e\mid w or f\mid w, in which case they are accounted for by a. Therefore, if v:w\notin(D_7(w)), then e\mid(v:w) or f\mid(v:w). In this exceptional situation e,f\nmid w, and since also a,b\nmid w, we have \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{c,d,g\}. This proves (3).

We prove (4). Suppose w\in A_9^{(s)}, and write w=de\cdot m. Since every edge containing a, b or c occurs before the de-block, we have a,b,c\nmid w. The earlier generators ae\cdot m and cd\cdot m give quotients a and c, respectively. If g\mid w, replacing the edge containing g by bg gives an earlier generator whose quotient by w is b. Hence the displayed formula for D_9(w) follows.

If g\mid w, then D_9(w)=\{a,b,c\}. Every earlier block contains one of a,b,c. Since none of these variables divides w, we have v:w\in(D_9(w)). If g\nmid w, then D_9(w)=\{a,c\}, and a,b,c,g\nmid w, so \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{d,e,f\}. If v:w\notin(a,c), then v cannot come from any earlier block except the bg-block. Therefore g\mid(v:w), proving the asserted alternative for i=9.

Finally we prove (5). Suppose w\in A_{10}^{(s)}, and write w=dg\cdot m. Since every edge containing a, b or c occurs before the dg-block, we have a,b,c\nmid w. The earlier generators bg\cdot m, cg\cdot m, and de\cdot m give quotients b,c,e, respectively. So b,c,e\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). If e\mid w, then the e-factor must come from an eg-factor; otherwise w would occur in the ae- or de-block. The quotients ae\cdot dg:dg\cdot eg=a and de\cdot dg:dg\cdot eg=d show that a,d\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). If f\mid w, then the f-factor must come from a df-factor; otherwise w would occur in the af- or cf-block. The quotient af\cdot dg:dg\cdot df=a shows that a\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). This gives the displayed formula for D_{10}(w).

Now let v\in A_{<10}^{(s)}. If e\nmid w and f\nmid w, then D_{10}(w)=\{b,c,e\}, and since a,b,c,e,f\nmid w, we have \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{d,g\}. Quotients from the ab-, bc-, and bg-blocks are divisible by b; quotients from the cd-, cg-, and cf-blocks are divisible by c; and quotients from the ae- and de-blocks are divisible by e. Thus, if v:w\notin(D_{10}(w)), the only remaining possibility is that v comes from the af-block, and then f\mid(v:w).

If e\nmid w but f\mid w, then D_{10}(w)=\{a,b,c,e\}. The same block reading shows that the ab-, bc-, and bg-blocks are caught by b, the cd-, cg-, and cf-blocks are caught by c, the ae- and de-blocks are caught by e, and the af-block is caught by a. Hence v:w\in(D_{10}(w)).

It remains to consider e\mid w where D_{10}(w)=\{a,b,c,d,e\}. The ab-, bc-, and bg-blocks are caught by b, the cd-, cg-, and cf-blocks are caught by c, and the ae- and af-blocks are caught by a. For the de-block, suppose toward a contradiction that neither d nor e divides v:w. Since v:w\notin(D_{10}(w)) also rules out a,b,c, the monomial v is supported on \{d,e,f,g\}. We may write w=(dg)^p(df)^r(eg)^q and v=(de)^t(dg)^P(df)^R(eg)^Q where p,q,t\geq 1 and p+r+q=t+P+R+Q=s. The assumptions d\nmid(v:w) and e\nmid(v:w) give t+P+R\leq p+r and t+Q\leq q. The second inequality gives P+R=s-t-Q\geq s-q=p+r, while the first gives P+R\leq p+r-t<p+r, a contradiction. Thus d\mid(v:w) or e\mid(v:w), so v:w\in(D_{10}(w)).

All cases have now been covered.

We prove that M^{(s)} is a linear quotients ordering for I^s for every s\geq 2. The case s=2 can be verified by a finite check. Now let s\geq 3, and assume that M^{(s-1)} is a linear quotients ordering for I^{s-1}.

It is enough to show that whenever v<w are generators in M^{(s)} with \deg(v:w)>1, the monomial v:w is divisible by a variable in \operatorname{set}_s(w). Write w\in A_i^{(s)} and v\in A_j^{(s)}. Since v<w, either j=i or j<i.

First suppose j=i. Then v=e_i\cdot v' and w=e_i\cdot w' where v'<w' in M^{(s-1)} and v:w=v':w'. Since \deg(v':w')>1, the induction hypothesis gives a variable x\in\operatorname{set}_{s-1}(w') such that x\mid(v':w'). By Lemma 4.2, this same variable belongs to \operatorname{set}_s(w). Therefore v:w is divisible by a variable in \operatorname{set}_s(w).

Now suppose j<i. Let v\in A_{<i}^{(s)}. By Lemma 4.4, either v:w\in(D_i(w)) or one of the exceptional alternatives for i=6,7,9,10 occurs. If v:w\in(D_i(w)), then v:w is divisible by some variable in D_i(w). This is enough because D_i(w)\subseteq \operatorname{set}_s(w).

It remains to handle the exceptional alternatives. If i=6 or i=7, then \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{c,d,g\} and e\mid(v:w) or f\mid(v:w). Since w\in A_i^{(s)}, we write w=e_i\cdot w' where e_i=cd if i=6 and e_i=cg if i=7. Then \operatorname{supp}(w')\subseteq\{c,d,g\}, so Lemma 4.3 gives e,f\in\operatorname{set}_{s-1}(w'). Then e,f\in\operatorname{set}_s(w) by Lemma 4.2. Since v:w is divisible by e or by f, the desired conclusion follows.

If i=9, then \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{d,e,f\} and g\mid(v:w). Write w=de\cdot w'. Then \operatorname{supp}(w')\subseteq\{d,e,f\}. It follows from Lemma 4.3 that g\in\operatorname{set}_{s-1}(w'). Thus g\in\operatorname{set}_s(w) by Lemma 4.2. Since g\mid(v:w), the desired conclusion follows.

Finally, if i=10, then \operatorname{supp}(w)\subseteq\{d,g\} and f\mid(v:w). Write w=dg\cdot w'. Then \operatorname{supp}(w')\subseteq\{d,g\}. It follows from Lemma 4.3 that f\in\operatorname{set}_{s-1}(w'). Thus, by Lemma 4.2, we have f\in\operatorname{set}_s(w). Since f\mid(v:w), the desired conclusion follows. This completes the proof.