Alphabeta Math
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.

Borel and Analytic Sets, Perfect Sets, and Determinacy: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These worked examples calculate empty and singleton tree bodies, a first-move clopen game, and a well-founded code for a closed cylinder complement. A terminal-taboo counterexample explains why a winning position need not retain every child. The non-Borel refutation transfers a choice-based undetermined payoff into the real line by a continuous injection; Borel determinacy rules out Borelness of its image.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Empty and single-branch tree codes

Example

In ZF, the empty tree has empty body. For each xNN the prefix tree Tx={xn:nN} has body {x}. In particular, for z(n)=0, the tree {,(0),(0,0),} has body exactly the constant-zero sequence. These bodies are closed in the cylinder topology.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A branch has every finite prefix in its tree, including the empty prefix; see Trees and their bodies.

Verification

Given: xNN, Tx as above, and the empty tree.

1.1

Every putative branch of would have to satisfy y0=, which is false. Hence []=, a closed set.

F1
1.2

Restricting xn to mn gives xmTx, so Tx is a tree. The point x lies in its body. If y[Tx], its prefix of length k+1 equals the unique member x(k+1) of Tx of that length. Consequently y(k)=x(k) for every k, giving [Tx]={x}.

F1given
2.1

For z(n)=0, step 1.2 gives y(k)=0 at every coordinate, the claimed concrete calculation. If yx, choose one differing coordinate k; its cylinder of length k+1 excludes x. Thus the complement of {x} is open, establishing the closedness assertion. QED.

step 1.2
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

A clopen game decided by the first move

Example

On T=N<ω let A={x:x(0)=0}. Player I wins by the strategy σ(s)=0 at every even-length position s. The payoff is clopen.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Full-position strategies and their winning condition are in Gale–Stewart games and strategies.

[F2]

Finite-prefix cylinders form the topology of Baire sequence space NN and its cylinder topology.

Verification

Given: The full natural-number tree, payoff A, and the constant-zero I strategy.

1.1

Every s0 belongs to the full tree, so σ is a legal strategy, including at s=. We have A=N(0) and NA=k1N(k), both open by F2. Hence A is clopen.

givenF1F2
2.1

Every branch consistent with σ satisfies x(0)=σ()=0, so belongs to A. For example, if II always plays 1, the unique compatible branch is (0,1,0,1,) and its first coordinate is 0. The same first-coordinate calculation holds for every sequence of II moves, proving that σ wins. QED.

F1step 1.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

A winning taboo position can have a nonwinning child

Statement refuted

In a game with terminal taboos, a position from which a player can force a terminal taboo for the opponent need not have only such winning children. In particular, deleting all positions from which either player can force an opponent taboo need not leave a prefix-closed tree. Here infinite play does not count as successful terminal reachability for either player.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A terminal taboo loses for its named player, while nonterminal moves and fixed-history parity are as in Game trees with terminal taboos.

Counterexample

Given: The tree T={,(0)}{(1)0n:nN}. Its only terminal node is (0); declare it taboo for II. The root is I-to-move. For definiteness the infinite payoff is empty; terminal reachability ignores that payoff.

1.1

Prefixes of (1)0n are the root or words (1)0m with mn, all listed in T. The only other nonempty word is (0), whose sole proper prefix is the root. Thus T is a nonempty tree. The node (0) is terminal and every node on the other ray has the unique child obtained by appending 0, verifying the asserted terminal partition.

givenF1
2.1

At the root I can choose 0 and reach the II taboo immediately. Below the child (1) every legal continuation is forced and the only maximal continuation is the infinite sequence (1,0,0,). No continuation from that child reaches a terminal node. Neither player can therefore force an opponent terminal taboo there, although I can do so at its parent.

F1step 1.1
3.1

The proposed deletion removes the root by step 2.1 and retains (1) by the same step. A set retaining (1) but omitting its empty prefix is not a tree. This is the required witness against both the child assertion and the resulting deletion rule. QED.

step 1.1step 2.1

Remarks

This witness corrects the downward-closure assertion in the proof of Buffard–Levrel–Mayo Lemma 1 (arXiv v1). It does not refute a reduction that keeps only nodes all of whose prefixes avoid the two reachability-winning sets. It is an AI-generated counterexample and is not a dependency supplier.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Every set of reals is Borel

Statement

False assertion: every subset of R is Borel.

In ZFC, take an undetermined payoff ANN and the continuous injection e:NNR supplied below. The set e[A] is a witness that the assertion fails.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Choice produces an undetermined natural-number game supplies A with neither player winning under AC.

[F2]

Continuous injections of sequence spaces into the real line gives the continuous injection e in ZF.

[F3]

Borel hierarchy exhaustion and preservation by continuous pullback makes continuous inverse images of Borel sets Borel in ZFC.

[F4]

Borel games are determined determines every Borel natural-number payoff in ZFC.

Refutation

Given: Work in ZFC throughout this counterexample.

1.1

F1 with A1 supplies A and F2 supplies e. Suppose e[A] were Borel in R. By continuity of e, F3 with A1 would make e1[e[A]] Borel in Baire space. This preimage equals A: if e(x)=e(a) for some a in A, injectivity gives x=a; conversely each a in A maps into e[A].

F1F2F3A1
2.1

Then F4 with A1 would give a winning strategy for one player for payoff A, contradicting its defining property from F1. Hence e[A] is not Borel and is the required subset of the real line witnessing the failed assertion. QED.

F1F4A1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Evaluating elementary Borel codes

Example

Fix a space X with enumerated basis (Un) and nN. The leaf(n) code evaluates to Un; a complement above that leaf evaluates to XUn; an empty union evaluates to ; and a complement above an empty union evaluates to X. These calculations hold in ZF.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Code nodes, their labels, and their well-foundedness requirement are in Well-founded Borel evaluation codes.

[F2]

Existence and uniqueness of Borel-code evaluation provides unique evaluation in ZF by the three displayed rules.

Verification

Given: X, (Un) and the fixed index n.

1.1

Let T1={} with root label leaf(n). It is valid since it has no child and its empty relation is well-founded. F2 gives E1()=Un. For T2={,(0)} label the root complement and (0) leaf(n). Then E2((0))=Un and E2()=XUn, which is closed because Un is open.

givenF1F2
1.2

On T3={} put a union label; then E3()==. On T4={,(0)} put a complement at the root and a union at (0). Then E4((0))= and E4()=X=X.

F1F2
2.1

In each two-node tree the sole child is terminal; any subset containing it has it as a minimal element, and a remaining nonempty subset is the singleton root. Thus the child relation is well-founded, and the complement nodes have exactly child zero as required. All four codes are valid even when X= or Un is empty or all of X. The empty underlying tree is not one of these codes, because F1 requires a root. QED.

F1step 1.1step 1.2

Sources