Alphabeta Math
Session-authored (Fable 5 assisted)
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.

7 results · 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. The 6 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Amenable Groups and Folner Criteria — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples compute concrete Folner families in abelian groups, isolate a standard extension argument for the lamplighter group, and show by direct computation that amenability and subexponential growth are not equivalent. The free-group examples keep the two standard witnesses of nonamenability visible: large boundary and paradoxical decomposition.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Intervals in Z are Folner sets

Example

For (Z,+) and any finite subset SZ, the intervals Fn=[n,n]Z are eventually (S,ε)-Folner for every ε>0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite set SZ and a real ε>0.

[L1]

(S,ε)-Folner sets are defined by the symmetric-difference estimate (Folner sets and the Folner condition).

[L2]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, such Folner families witness amenability through the Folner criterion (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Let M=maxsSs. For every sS, the translate s+Fn differs from Fn only near the two ends of the interval, so (s+Fn)Fn2M.

givenalgebra
2.1

Since Fn=2n+1, the ratio (s+Fn)Fn/Fn is at most 2M/(2n+1) and therefore tends to 0 uniformly in sS. Hence Fn is eventually (S,ε)-Folner in the sense of [L1], illustrating the criterion [L2].

L1L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Boxes in Z^n are Folner sets

Example

For (Zd,+) and any finite subset SZd, the boxes

Qn=[n,n]dZd

form a Folner family.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite set SZd and a real ε>0.

[L1]

Folner sets are measured by relative symmetric-difference boundary (Folner sets and the Folner condition).

[L2]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, such Folner families witness amenability through the Folner criterion (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Let M=maxsSs. For each sS, the translate s+Qn differs from Qn only inside the M-thick boundary layers of the cube, so (s+Qn)Qn=O(nd1).

givenalgebra
2.1

Because Qn=(2n+1)d, the ratio (s+Qn)Qn/Qn tends to 0 as n uniformly in sS. Hence the boxes are eventually (S,ε)-Folner by [L1], illustrating [L2].

L1L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Under the ultrafilter lemma, finite groups and locally finite groups are amenable

Example

Assume the ultrafilter lemma. Every finite group is amenable, and the direct sum nNZ/2Z is an infinite amenable group.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite-group case, the countable direct sum L=nNZ/2Z, and the ultrafilter lemma.

[L1]

Finite groups are amenable (Finite groups are amenable).

[L2]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, locally finite groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, solvable groups and locally finite groups are amenable).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The finite case is exactly [L1].

L1given
2.1

Every finitely generated subgroup of L is supported on finitely many coordinates and is therefore finite. Thus L is locally finite, and [L2] makes it amenable.

L2step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable

Example

Assume the ultrafilter lemma. The lamplighter group

L=(nZZ/2Z)Z

is amenable.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The semidirect product L=(ZZ/2Z)Z with the shift action of Z on the lamp coordinates, and the ultrafilter lemma.

[L1]

An external semidirect product is the group built from an action by automorphisms ( The external semidirect product NαH).

[L2]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, locally finite groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, solvable groups and locally finite groups are amenable).

[L3]

Extensions of amenable groups are amenable (Extensions of amenable groups are amenable).

[L4]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, abelian groups are amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, abelian groups are amenable).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The base group B=nZZ/2Z is locally finite, because a finitely generated subgroup is supported on finitely many coordinates and is therefore finite. Thus [L2] makes B amenable.

L2givenalgebra
2.1

The quotient of L by the normal base group B is Z, which is abelian and hence amenable by [L4]. Therefore [L3] applies to the semidirect product from [L1] and shows that the lamplighter group L is amenable.

L1L3L4step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Boundary expansion in the free group

Example

In the free group F(a,b) with symmetric generating set S={a,a1,b,b1}, the balls Bn satisfy

SBnBnBn2.

In particular their one-sided generator boundary proportion stays uniformly positive.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The free group F(a,b) with the symmetric generating set S={a,a1,b,b1}.

[L1]

The rank-two free group is nonamenable (The free group of rank two is nonamenable).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For every n0, one has Bn=1+4k=1n3k1=23n1. Every element of SBnBn has reduced-word length exactly n+1, and every reduced word of length n+1 is obtained by taking its length-n prefix in Bn and multiplying by its final letter in S. Hence SBn=Bn+1 and SBnBn=Bn+1Bn=43n. Therefore SBnBnBn=43n23n12.

givenalgebra
2.1

In particular the one-sided generator boundary ratio of the balls never approaches 0. This explicit boundary expansion is the geometric obstruction behind the nonamenability recorded in [L1].

L1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-28Open item page →

A paradoxical decomposition of a free group of rank two

Example

The free group F(a,b) admits a paradoxical decomposition.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The free group F(a,b).

[L1]

Paradoxical decompositions are the translated finite partitions from Paradoxical decompositions of groups.

[L2]

The rank-two free group is nonamenable (The free group of rank two is nonamenable).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For x{a,a1,b,b1} let W(x) be the set of nonempty reduced words beginning with x, and put P={an:n0} and P+={an:n1}. Define A1=W(a)P+, A2=W(a1)P, B1=W(b), and B2=W(b1).

L2givenconstruct
2.1

The four sets in step 1.1 are pairwise disjoint and partition F(a,b): the nonidentity reduced words have one of the four possible first letters, and P+ has been moved from W(a) into the piece containing the identity.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Reduction of the first letter gives aW(a1)=F(a,b)W(a) and aP=P+, hence F(a,b)=A1aA2. Similarly bW(b1)=F(a,b)W(b), hence F(a,b)=B1bB2. Therefore the pieces in step 1.1 with translators e,a,e,b satisfy [L1] and form a paradoxical decomposition.

L1step 1.1step 2.1algebra
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28Open item page →

Under the ultrafilter lemma, amenability does not imply subexponential growth

Statement refuted

Every amenable finitely generated group has subexponential growth.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The false claim above and the ultrafilter lemma.

[L1]

Exponential growth is one of the growth types in the standard comparison hierarchy (Polynomial, subexponential, exponential, and intermediate growth).

[L2]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the standard lamplighter group is amenable).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Let L=(ZZ/2Z)Z with generators t for the shift and a for toggling the lamp at the origin. For every subset E{0,,n1}, the element obtained by walking from 0 to n, toggling exactly the lamps in E on the way, has word length at most 3n; different subsets give different group elements.

givenconstruct
2.1

Therefore the ball of radius 3n contains at least 2n elements, so L has exponential growth in the sense of [L1]. Together with [L2], this amenable group refutes the statement.

L1L2step 1.1algebra

Sources