Proof: By Induction
(related to Proposition: Equivalent Definitions of Trees)
By hypothesis, G(V,E,\gamma) is an undirected graph.
(1)\Rightarrow(2)
- Let G be a tree.
- Let G^\prime(V,E^\prime,\gamma^\prime) be a supergraph of G containing at least one additional edge e^\prime\in E^\prime\setminus E.
- Without loss of generality, assume e^\prime is not a loop (otherwise, G^\prime would contain a cycle).
- In other words, without loss of generality, \gamma^\prime(e^\prime)=\{v,u\} with u\neq v.
- Since G is a tree, it is connected.
- Therefore, there is a path P connecting u and v.
- Since e^\prime connects u and v directly, P+e^\prime is a cycle.
- Thus, G contains no cycle and any supergraph of G contains a cycle.
(2)\Rightarrow(3)
- Let G contain no cycle and let any supergraph of G contain a cycle.
- Let u,v\in V be a pair of any vertices.
- Because G contains no cycle, it also contains no loops. Therefore, we can assume u\neq v.
- Let e^\prime=\{u,v\} be an additional edge of the supergraph G^\prime:=(V,E\cup\{e^\prime\},\gamma).
- By assumption G^\prime contains a cycle and this cycle must contain e^\prime, since G had no cycles.
- Without loss of generality, set C=(v=v_0,e^\prime,u=v_1,e_2,\ldots,e_k,v_k=v) to a cycle containing e^\prime.
- It follows that P=(u=v_1,e_2,\ldots,e_k,v_k=v) is a path connecting u and v in G.
- Assume, there exists another path Q=(u=v_1,e^\prime_2,\ldots,e^\prime_k,v_k=v) connecting u and v in G.
- By assumption P\neq Q and therefore, there are indices i\in\{2,\ldots,k\} such that e_i\neq e^\prime_i.
- By the well-ordering principle, there is a minimal such index i\ge 2.
- Then, the edges e_i and e^\prime_i connect the vertex v_{i-1} with two different vertices v_{i} and v^\prime_{i}, otherwise (v_{i-1},e_i,v_i,e^\prime_i,v_{i-1}) woud be a cycle.
- Since both P and Q end at the same vertex v_k=v, the set of indices j such that j>i and v_j=v^\prime_j, is not empty.
- Using the well-ordering principle once again, there is a minimal index j such that i < j\le k, and at which both paths P und Q meet together again.
- This would mean that between v_{i-1} and v_j there is a cycle formed by parts of the paths P and Q.
- This is a contradiction to the hypothesis, G contained no cycle.
- Thus, P and Q are identical.
- It follows that for every pair of vertices u,v\in V there is exactly one path P^k:=x_0x_1\ldots x_{k-1}x_k in G with x_0=u and x_k=v.
(3)\Rightarrow(4)
- Assume, every pair of vertices u,v\in V there is exactly one path P^k:=x_0x_1\ldots x_{k-1}x_k in G with x_0=u and x_k=v.
- Trivially, G is connected.
- Now, let us remove any edge e\in E from G with \gamma(e)=\{u,v\}.
- If u=v, then e was a loop and P=u and Q=(u,e) would be two different paths from u to u.
- Therefore, u\neq v.
- Assume G without the edge e is still connected.
- Then there is a path Q from u to v not passing through the edge e.
- But then, Q and P=(u,e,v) would be two different paths in G connecting u and v.
- It follows G is connected and the removal of any edge leaves G disconnected (G is "minimally connected").
(4)\Rightarrow(5)
- Let G be minimally connected.
- We prove first the inequality |E|\le |V|-1 by induction on n=|V|.
- Base cases n=1
* The inequality is correct since G is minimally connected, there are 0 edges in G, and 0\le 1-1.
- Induction step n\to n+1
* Assume, for all trees with k vertices, 1 \le k < n, we have |E|\le |V|-1.
* (4) shows that removing any edge e disconnects G in some components G_1,\ldots G_p.
* By induction assumption |E_i|\le |V_i|-1 for all i=1,\ldots,p.
* Because G_1,\ldots G_p are a partition, we can sum up all p inequalities to get |E|\le |V|-p\le |V|-1.
- It follows |E|\le |V|-1 for all minimally connected graphs G.
- We now observe that for all minimally connected graphs |V|\le |E|+1, since any edge connects at most 2 different vertices. In other words |E|\ge |V|-1.
- Since |E|\le |V|-1 and |E|\ge |V|-1, it follows G is connected and |E|=|V|-1.
(5)\Rightarrow(6)
- Every G is connected and |E|=|V|-1.
- Assume, C is a cycle in G containing some edge e.
- Then the subgraph H retrieved from G by removing e is still connected and contains |V|-2 edges.
- This is a contradiction to the hypothesis.
- Therefore, G has no cycle and |E|=|V|-1.
(6)\Rightarrow(1)
- Assume, G has no cycle and |E|=|V|-1.
- By definition, G is a forest.
- Assume, G is not connected and consists of the components G_1,\ldots,G_p.
- Since every G_i is a tree, we have by the implications (1)\Rightarrow\ldots\Rightarrow(5) that |E_i|=|V_i|-1 for i=1,\ldots,p.
- It follows |V|-1=|E|=\sum_{i=1}^p |E_i|=\sum_{i=1}^p (|V_i|-1)=|V|-p.
- Now, it follows p=1.
- Therefore, G is a tree.
∎
Thank you to the contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0!

- Github:
-

References
Bibliography
- Krumke S. O., Noltemeier H.: "Graphentheoretische Konzepte und Algorithmen", Teubner, 2005, 1st Edition