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.
Projective Algebraic Sets Projective Morphisms and Cones — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Noether Normalisation and Nullstellensatz
- Noetherian Rings and Hilbert Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Prime Spectra and Radicals
- Projective Algebraic Sets Projective Morphisms and Cones
- Rees Modules Artin Rees and Hilbert Samuel Theory
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
These examples make the infrastructure concrete through explicit chart, closure, conic, cone, and coordinate-map computations. The companion develops homogeneous equations, affine charts, projective closure and saturation, regular functions, coordinate morphisms, and affine cones.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
projective line two affine charts
Example
For , has coordinate and has coordinate . On , both coordinates are nonzero and . Thus the two affine lines glue by inversion; is and the point outside is .
projective closure parabola
Example
For the parabola , use homogeneous coordinates . Its homogenization is , so . The chart is . At infinity , the equation gives , leaving exactly .
naive homogenization adds component
Statement refuted
Raw homogenization of arbitrary generators always gives the projective closure.
Counterexample
Given: , with projective coordinates .
The raw homogenized generators are and , whose common projective zeros include : both polynomials vanish there.
Since , one has ; hence and its closure is , which does not contain .
Thus raw generators introduce a spurious point at infinity; saturation removes it and is necessary.
projective conic standard charts
Example
For , the chart has equation , and the chart has equation . The chart has equation . These are the standard affine pieces, related on overlaps by ratio-coordinate changes.
affine cone over conic
Example
Assume . The affine cone over is . Its partial derivatives are , all zero at ; the defining equation also vanishes there. This is the elementary hypersurface-derivative diagnostic at the vertex only, not an invocation of a general singular-locus theorem.
inhomogeneous equation not projectively well defined
Statement refuted
An arbitrary polynomial equation has a representative-independent zero locus in projective space.
Counterexample
Given: A field of characteristic not equal to , the inhomogeneous polynomial , and the projective point .
The vectors and represent the same projective point, but takes the nonzero value at the first and the value at the second.
Thus the vanishing decision changes with the representative, refuting the assertion.
morphism projective line power map
Example
For , is defined because have common degree and no common projective zero. On it is , and on it is . The formulas agree under .