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.

6 results · all verified · 3 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 3 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Decision Problems for Finitely Presented Groups - Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples keep the abstract decision-problem language concrete: free reduction in a free group, coordinate reduction in a cyclic presentation, one free-group conjugacy calculation, one partial coset-enumeration warning, and a small relator-area computation. The counterexample isolates the gap between enumerating positive instances and deciding all instances.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Free reduction decides a word in a free group

Example

In the free group on generators a,b, the word

w=abb1a1aba1

is nontrivial because its free reduction is aba1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The free-group word-problem criterion.

[L1]

A word in a finitely generated free group is trivial exactly when its free reduction is empty. (The word problem for a finitely generated free group is solvable by free reduction)

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Cancel the adjacent pair bb1 in w, then cancel the adjacent pair a1a. The resulting reduced word is aba1.

given
2.1

The reduced word aba1 is not empty, so [L1] implies that the original word w is nontrivial.

L1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 1 statement not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Finitely generated abelian groups admit invariant-factor normal form. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

The word problem in a finite cyclic presentation

Example

In the cyclic presentation xx6=e, the word x14 is equal to x2 and therefore is not trivial.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The word problem is solvable in finitely generated abelian groups.

[L1]

Every finitely generated abelian group has solvable word problem. (The word problem for finitely generated abelian groups is solvable)

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

In the cyclic group of order 6, exponents are taken modulo 6, so x14=x2.

given
2.1

Because 2≢0(mod6), the element x2 is not the identity. This is the abelian coordinate check promised by [L1].

L1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Conjugacy in a free group by cyclic reduction

Example

In the free group on a,b, the cyclically reduced words aba1b1 and ba1b1a are conjugate.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The conjugacy problem asks whether two words represent conjugate elements.

[L1]

In a free group, two cyclically reduced words are conjugate if and only if one is a cyclic permutation of the other. (Two cyclically reduced words in a free group are conjugate if and only if one is a cyclic permutation of the other)

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The word ba1b1a is obtained from aba1b1 by moving the initial letter a to the end. So it is a cyclic permutation of the first word.

given
2.1

Both words are cyclically reduced, and [L1] therefore makes them conjugate in the free group.

L1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Todd-Coxeter as a partial coset-enumeration procedure

Example

Coset enumeration can certify some negative word-problem instances without thereby giving a uniform solution.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A fixed finite presentation.

[L1]

The word problem for a fixed finite presentation asks whether an input word is trivial in the presented group. (The word problem for a fixed finite presentation)

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

In a finite quotient obtained from a partial Todd-Coxeter table, if the input word acts nontrivially on some enumerated coset, then the word is certainly nontrivial in the presented group, because every quotient homomorphism preserves equality with the identity.

L1given
2.1

This shows how a partial enumeration can settle some instances by exhibiting a separating finite quotient. It does not claim that every enumeration terminates or every instance is decided.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Computing an algebraic relator area

Example

In the presentation aa3=e, the null word a6 has algebraic relator area 2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The relator-area definition for a finite presentation.

[L1]

The algebraic relator area of a null word is the least number of conjugates of defining relators and their inverses whose product equals that word. (Algebraic relator area and the Dehn function of a finite presentation)

[L2]

Every null word has a minimal algebraic relator area. (Every null word has a minimal algebraic relator area)

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The word a6 is the product (a3)(a3), so [L1] gives Area(a6)2.

L1given
2.1

It is not 1, because a single conjugate of the only relator or its inverse is just a3 or a3 in this cyclic presentation. Thus [L2] forces the minimum to be exactly 2.

L1L2step 1.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Enumerating relator consequences does not decide nontriviality

Statement refuted

Enumerating all relator consequences of a recursive presentation decides nontriviality of words in that presentation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The recursive presentation a and the word a.

[L1]

The trivial words of a recursively presented group form a recursively enumerable language. (The trivial words of a recursively presented group form a recursively enumerable language)

[L2]

A reduced nonempty word in a free group is nonidentity. (The word problem for a finitely generated free group is solvable by free reduction)

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The presentation a presents the free group on a. The word a is reduced and nonempty, so [L2] says that it is nontrivial.

L2given
2.1

By [L1], enumerating relator consequences lists precisely the trivial words. Since a is nontrivial by step 1.1, it never appears, and waiting for it gives no halting certificate of nontriviality.

L1step 1.1
3.1

Hence the asserted decision procedure is false, and the claimed principle is refuted.

step 2.1

Sources