Pipeline-generated

How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 1 result · all verified · 1 also independently AI-judged

Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 1 also cleared it.

Mixed Hodge Structures And Strictness: Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This companion to mixed-hodge-structures-and-strictness works the smallest example that distinguishes a mixed Hodge structure from a direct sum of pure pieces. A mixed Hodge extension without a rational splitting takes $H = Q e_{0} \oplus Q e_{1}$ with weight filtration concentrated in weights $- 2$ and $0$ and Hodge filtration $F^{0} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ ; the graded pieces are the Tate structures $Q (1)$ and $Q (0)$ , both checks of the opposition axiom are carried out in the displayed basis, and the resulting short exact sequence $0 \to Q (1) \to H \to Q (0) \to 0$ is shown to admit no rational splitting: a rational section sends the generator of $Q (0)$ to $e_{0} + q e_{1}$ with $q \in Q$ , while preservation of $F^{0}$ forces $q = i$ . The example is used by the rest of the track as the standard warning that the Deligne splitting is a decomposition over $C$ only.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

A mixed Hodge extension without a rational splitting

Example

A rational mixed Hodge structure can be an extension of two pure structures and still admit no splitting over $Q$ . On $H = Q e_{0} \oplus Q e_{1}$ put $W_{- 3} = 0$ , $W_{- 2} = W_{- 1} = Q e_{1}$ , $W_{0} = H$ , and $F^{1} = 0$ , $F^{0} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ , $F^{- 1} = H_{C}$ . This is a mixed Hodge structure sitting in a short exact sequence $0 \to Q (1) \to H \to Q (0) \to 0$ which has no splitting in the category of rational mixed Hodge structures.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The rational vector space $H = Q e_{0} \oplus Q e_{1}$ (Rational mixed Hodge structures), the increasing filtration $W_{- 3} = 0$ , $W_{- 2} = W_{- 1} = Q e_{1}$ , $W_{0} = H$ and the decreasing filtration $F^{1} H_{C} = 0$ , $F^{0} H_{C} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ , $F^{- 1} H_{C} = H_{C}$ , with $i \in C$ satisfying $i^{2} = - 1$ and conjugation $σ (z) = \overset{ˉ}{z}$ (The complex numbers as $R [x] / (x^{2} + 1)$ , with the real embedding and imaginary unit $i$ ).

[F1]

A rational mixed Hodge structure is the datum of a finite increasing $W$ and a finite decreasing $F$ such that on every ${Gr}_{n}^{W} H_{C}$ the induced filtrations are $n$ -opposed, i.e. split into the pieces $H_{n}^{p, q}$ with $\overline{H_{n}^{p, q}} = H_{n}^{q, p}$ ; a morphism preserves $W$ and $F$ (Rational mixed Hodge structures).

[F2]

The Tate structure $Q (r)$ is the pure structure of weight $- 2 r$ with $Q (r)_{C} = C$ concentrated in type $(- r, - r)$ ; in particular $Q (1)$ has weight $- 2$ and type $(- 1, - 1)$ , while $Q (0)$ has weight $0$ and type $(0, 0)$ (Rational mixed Hodge structures).

[F3]

On a graded piece ${Gr}_{n}^{W} H_{C}$ the induced filtration $F$ is the image of $F \cap W_{n}$ and $\overset{ˉ}{F} = σ (F)$ ; the summands are $H_{n}^{p, q} = F^{p} {Gr}_{n}^{W} \cap {\overset{ˉ}{F}}^{q} {Gr}_{n}^{W}$ (Rational mixed Hodge structures).

Verification

technique · direct

1.1givenF1F2F3algebra

The weight filtration is finite with ${Gr}_{- 2}^{W} = Q e_{1}$ , ${Gr}_{- 1}^{W} = 0$ and ${Gr}_{0}^{W} = H / Q e_{1} ≅ Q e_{0}$ . On ${Gr}_{- 2}^{W}$ the induced $F$ has $F^{0} = 0$ and $F^{- 1} = {Gr}_{- 2}^{W}$ , since $F^{0} \cap W_{- 2} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1}) \cap C e_{1} = 0$ ; the conjugate filtration satisfies ${\overset{ˉ}{F}}^{- 1} = {Gr}_{- 2}^{W}$ and ${\overset{ˉ}{F}}^{0} = 0$ for the same reason, so the pieces are $H^{- 1, - 1} = {Gr}_{- 2}^{W}$ and nothing else, and $H^{- 1, - 1}$ is spanned by the image of $e_{1}$ , which is rational. On ${Gr}_{0}^{W}$ the image of $F^{0} \cap W_{0} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ is all of ${Gr}_{0}^{W}$ because $e_{0} + i e_{1} \mapsto e_{0} \neq 0$ , and $F^{1} = 0$ ; the conjugate ${\overset{ˉ}{F}}^{0} = σ (F^{0}) = C (e_{0} - i e_{1})$ likewise has image all of ${Gr}_{0}^{W}$ , so the pieces are $H^{0, 0} = {Gr}_{0}^{W}$ and nothing else. Both graded pieces are therefore $n$ -opposed, with the rational structure of $e_{1}$ and $e_{0}$ respectively, so $(H, W, F)$ is a rational mixed Hodge structure; its graded pieces are $Q (1)$ and $Q (0)$ in the convention [F2].

2.1givenF1F2step 1.1algebra

Let $ι ⁣ : Q (1) \to H$ be the rational inclusion $1 \mapsto e_{1}$ , whose complexification is $C \to H_{C}$ and let $π ⁣ : H \to Q (0)$ be the $Q$ -linear map $e_{0} \mapsto 1$ , $e_{1} \mapsto 0$ . Both preserve the filtrations: $ι$ sends the weight- $(- 2)$ structure into $W_{- 2} H = Q e_{1}$ and $F^{- 1} Q (1)_{C} = C$ into $F^{- 1} H_{C} = H_{C}$ , while $F^{0} Q (1)_{C} = 0$ ; and $π$ satisfies $π (W_{- 1} H) = 0 = W_{- 1} Q (0)$ and $π (W_{0} H) = Q (0) = W_{0} Q (0)$ , $π (F^{0} H_{C}) \subseteq C = F^{0} Q (0)_{C}$ and $π (F^{1} H_{C}) = 0$ . Hence $0 \to Q (1) \overset{ι}{\to} H \overset{π}{\to} Q (0) \to 0$ is a short exact sequence of rational mixed Hodge structures, with $\ker π = Q e_{1}$ .

3.1givenF1step 2.1algebra∎

Every $Q$ -linear section $s$ of $π$ satisfies $s (1) = e_{0} + q e_{1}$ with $q \in Q$ , because $π (e_{0} + q e_{1}) = 1$ and $π (e_{1}) = 0$ . If $s$ were a morphism of mixed Hodge structures, it would satisfy $s_{C} (F^{0} Q (0)_{C}) \subseteq F^{0} H_{C} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ ; since $F^{0} Q (0)_{C} = C$ and $s_{C} (1) = e_{0} + q e_{1}$ , there would be $λ \in C$ with $e_{0} + q e_{1} = λ (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ . Comparing the coefficients of $e_{0}$ and $e_{1}$ in the basis $(e_{0}, e_{1})$ gives $λ = 1$ and $q = i$ , which is impossible for $q \in Q$ . Hence the extension does not split in the category of rational mixed Hodge structures. The obstruction is visible directly in the $(0, 0)$ -direction: $F^{0} H_{C} \cap {\overset{ˉ}{F}}^{0} H_{C} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1}) \cap C (e_{0} - i e_{1}) = 0$ , while a rational section must send $1$ into a rational vector of $F^{0}$ , which is then also fixed by conjugation and hence would have to lie in this zero intersection.

Source notes

Deligne II gives the theory, the Tate object and the morphism condition; the two-dimensional witness with $F^{0} = C (e_{0} + i e_{1})$ was not located verbatim in the fetched texts, so the statement and verification are recorded as generated, with the definitional background cited. The closest statement-level analogue is the one-dimensional example on the punctured line, El Zein, Example 1.3. No choice principle is used: the only quantifiers run over elements of the displayed two-dimensional space.