Triangle-Free Modal Graph Theory


Tabitha Williams

Sam Houston State University

Advisor: Timothy Trujillo   •   Collaborator: Miguel Estrada

JMM 2026 — Washington, DC

Graph Theory Foundations

What is a Graph? A graph is a set of vertices with an edge relation (\(\sim\)) that is:
  • Irreflexive: No vertex connects to itself.
    \(\forall x \neg(x \sim x)\)
  • Symmetric: Bidirectional connections.
    \(\forall x \forall y (x \sim y \rightarrow y \sim x)\)

The Language of First-Order Graph Theory

What we CAN say (Local) We use variables (\(x, y, z\)) and adjacency (\(\sim\)).

"There exists a triangle."
\(\exists x \exists y \exists z (x \sim y \land y \sim z \land z \sim x)\)
What we CAN'T say (Global) First-order logic cannot express global structural properties.

  • "The graph is connected."
  • "The graph is finite."

Modal Logic in Graph Theory

We enhance graph theory by adding operators defined by graph extensions.

\(\Diamond\varphi\)
Possibility

True if we can extend \(G\) to \(H\) where \(\varphi\) is true.

\(\Box\varphi\)
Necessity

True if \(\varphi\) holds in every possible extension of \(G\).

Hamkins & Wołoszyn, Modal Model Theory (2022)

Our Focus: The World of Triangle-Free Graphs

Definition A graph \(G\) is triangle-free if it has no triangular subgraph:
\(\forall x \forall y \forall z (x \sim z \land y \sim z \rightarrow \neg(x \sim y))\)
The Main Rule When we talk about possibility/necessity, all graph extensions must also be triangle-free.

Illustrating Valid vs. Invalid Extensions

a b c d e

Base Graph (TF)

f

Valid Extension
Remains Triangle-Free

Invalid Extension
Triangle Created (\(c \sim d\))

Why Expressing Connectivity is a Big Deal

A Classic Limitation You cannot write a first-order graph formula that is true iff two vertices are connected by a path.
The Power of Modal Logic Modal logic quantifies over extensions, enabling a definition of path-connectedness.

The Modal Formula for Connectivity (General Case)

Hamkins & Wołoszyn

\[ \Box\forall c\Big[ \big( c \sim x \land \forall u,v(c \sim u \land u \sim v \land v \neq c \rightarrow c \sim v) \big) \rightarrow c \sim y \Big] \]
What this is trying to define Think of the displayed formula as a predicate \(\mathrm{Conn}(x,y)\) meaning:
“\(x\) and \(y\) are connected by a path.”
Then a modal definition of graph connectedness is the single sentence:
\(\forall x\,\forall y\,\mathrm{Conn}(x,y)\).
In Plain English Necessarily, for any newly added node \(c\): if \(c\) attaches to \(x\) and its adjacency is forced to be “closed” under one-step moves, then \(c\) must also attach to \(y\).

The Problem: Direct Connections Can Create Triangles

u v Existing edge c TRIANGLE
The Issue The original formula uses direct connections like \(c \sim x\). In triangle-free extensions, this can force a forbidden triangle immediately.

The Solution: A Triangle-Free Proxy Connection

Definition: Private-Witness \(\bowtie\) We define \(x \bowtie y\) using a witness \(z\) that connects to only \(x\) and \(y\):
\[ x \bowtie y \iff \exists z\Big( x \sim z \land y \sim z \land \forall w\,(z \sim w \rightarrow (w=x \lor w=y)) \Big). \]
x y z safe two-step link (\(\bowtie\))

The “private witness” condition prevents \(z\) from participating elsewhere, so \(\bowtie\) behaves like a dedicated two-step connector.

The Adapted Formula for Connectivity (Triangle-Free)

Replace direct adjacency in the extension-behavior with safe \(\bowtie\) connections.

\[ \Box\forall c\Big[ \big( c \bowtie x \land \forall u,v(c \bowtie u \land u \sim v \land v \neq c \rightarrow c \bowtie v) \big) \rightarrow c \bowtie y \Big] \]
In Plain English Same logical shape as the general case, but every time we would force a direct edge to \(c\), we instead force a private two-step \(\bowtie\) link.

Meta-Theorem: A Bridge Between Worlds

The Goal Translate any modal formula \(\varphi\) from the general world to the triangle-free world.
The Method Build \(\varphi^\*\) by replacing extension-adjacency requirements with safe \(\bowtie\)-requirements.
Truth Preservation The translated statements capture the same modal content, now restricted to triangle-free extensions.

Other Expressible Properties

Using the translation idea:

2-Colorability Easy, since 2-colorable graphs are always triangle-free.
Finiteness / Countability Expressible via special “witness” configurations built using \(\bowtie\).
Continuum Size Size properties can be expressed by adapting constructions to remain triangle-free.

Maximality and the S5 Axiom

S5 Axiom: \(\Diamond\Box\varphi \rightarrow \varphi\)
Meaning “If something is possibly necessary, then it must already be true.”

In graph terms: a graph validates S5 when it is “maximal” for its extension universe.

The Two “Maximal” Graphs

The Random Graph (R)
  • Maximal in the general setting.
  • Contains every finite graph (including triangles).
  • Validates S5 for general modal graph theory.
The Henson Graph (\(H_3\))
  • Maximal in the triangle-free setting.
  • Contains every finite triangle-free graph.
  • Validates S5 for TF modal graph theory.

Why the Henson Graph is Different

The difference comes from the meaning of “possibility”:

In the world of the Random Graph… It is always possible to add an edge that completes a triangle.
In the world of the Henson Graph… It is impossible to add an edge that completes a triangle.
The Takeaway: Restricting extensions changes the entire landscape of modal truths.

References