Alphabeta Math
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 · 4 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.

Small Cancellation and Dehn Algorithms - Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples make the symmetrisation and piece conventions explicit, show one concrete Dehn reduction and one Greendlinger face, and record the strict endpoint failures that the C′(1/6) convention is designed to exclude.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01Open item page →

Symmetrising a one-relator presentation adds the cyclic conjugates and inverse cyclic conjugates

Example

For the one-relator presentation ⟨a,b,c∣abc⟩, the symmetrisation of the relator set is

{abc,bca,cab,c−1b−1a−1,b−1a−1c−1,a−1c−1b−1}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The cyclically reduced relator r=abc.

[L1]

Symmetrisation adds all cyclic conjugates of r and of r−1 (The symmetrisation of a relator set closes under inverses and cyclic conjugates).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

The cyclic conjugates of r=abc are abc, bca, and cab.

2.1L1step 1.1∎

The inverse word is r−1=c−1b−1a−1, whose cyclic conjugates are c−1b−1a−1, b−1a−1c−1, and a−1c−1b−1. Applying [L1] gives exactly the displayed six-element set.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01Open item page →

A concrete relator set with its pieces and a direct C prime(1/6) check

Example

Let

R={abcdefg,ahijklmn}.

Then the only nontrivial pieces in the symmetrised set are the one-letter words a and a−1, so this relator set satisfies C′(1/6).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two relators r1=abcdefg and r2=ahijklmn.

[L1]

Pieces are common initial segments of distinct symmetrised occurrences (A piece is a common initial segment occurring in two distinct places of a symmetrised relator set).

[L2]

C′(1/6) requires every piece to have length less than one sixth of the relator containing it (The small-cancellation conditions C(lambda) and C prime(lambda)).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The words r1 and r2 start with the same letter a and then immediately diverge, so a is a piece by [L1]. Their inverse words have cyclic conjugates starting with a−1 and then immediately diverging, so a−1 is also a piece. Every other letter occurs in only one cyclic position among the two relators and their inverses, so there is no other nontrivial piece and no piece of length greater than 1.

2.1L2step 1.1algebra∎

The relevant relator lengths are ∣r1∣=7 and ∣r2∣=8, while both pieces have length 1. Since 1<7/6 and 1<8/6, [L2] shows that the C′(1/6) inequalities hold for every symmetrised occurrence.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

A trivial word is reduced to the empty word by successive Dehn moves

Example

In the one-relator presentation

⟨x1,…,x7∣x1x2x3x4x5x6x7⟩,

the word

w=(x1x2x3x4x5x6x7)2

reduces to the empty word by two successive Dehn moves.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The presentation and the word w displayed above.

[L1]

A relator subword longer than half the relator may be replaced by the inverse complementary arc, and this shortens the word (Dehn-reduced words and Dehn presentations, A Dehn replacement shortens the word strictly).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The first seven letters of w form the defining relator itself, so [L1] replaces that block by the empty word. The result is the single relator x1x2x3x4x5x6x7.

2.1L1step 1.1∎

Apply the same move again to the remaining relator block. A second Dehn replacement produces the empty word.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

A minimal diagram exhibits the Greendlinger face covering more than half its boundary

Example

A one-face van Kampen diagram for a defining relator is already a Greendlinger example: that unique face contributes all of its boundary to the outer boundary.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A one-face van Kampen diagram whose unique face is labelled by a relator r.

[L1]

Greendlinger's conclusion asks for a face contributing more than half of its boundary to the outer boundary (In a reduced C prime(1/6) null diagram, some face contributes more than half of its boundary to the outer boundary).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

In a one-face disc diagram, every edge of the unique face lies on the outer boundary of the whole diagram. So the distinguished face contributes exactly ∣r∣ boundary edges to the outer boundary.

2.1L1step 1.1algebra∎

Since ∣r∣>∣r∣/2, the unique face satisfies the conclusion of [L1]. Thus this one-cell disc is a concrete Greendlinger face.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-09-09 (gpt-6-astra)Open item page →

A strict C prime(1/6) presentation that is a free group of rank six

Example

The presentation

G=⟨x1,…,x7∣x1x2x3x4x5x6x7⟩

is a strict C′(1/6) presentation with no proper-power relator. In fact G is isomorphic to the free group on x1,…,x6, and is torsion-free.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The displayed one-relator presentation.

[L1]

Symmetrisation includes cyclic conjugates and inverse cyclic conjugates; a piece is a nonempty common prefix of distinct symmetrised relators; strict C′(1/6) bounds every piece by one sixth of its relator length (The symmetrisation of a relator set closes under inverses and cyclic conjugates, A piece is a common initial segment occurring in two distinct places of a symmetrised relator set, The small-cancellation conditions C(lambda) and C prime(lambda)).

[L2]

Redundant-relator moves and legal dictionary-generator deletions preserve the presented group (Tietze transformations: dictionary generators, redundant relators, renaming, and their inverses, Each Tietze transformation preserves the isomorphism type of the presented group). A presentation with no relators is the free group on its generators (Group presentation by generators and relations).

[L3]

Free groups are torsion-free (Free groups are torsion-free).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1givenL1

Write r=x1⋯x7. Its seven positive cyclic conjugates have distinct first letters, as do its seven negative inverse conjugates; no positive first letter equals a negative one. Thus no distinct symmetrised relators share a nonempty prefix, so there are no pieces and strict C′(1/6) holds vacuously. The cyclic word is not a proper power: each generator occurs exactly once, whereas a repetition at least twice would repeat each occurring letter.

2.1L2step 1.1

Add the inverse relator r−1 as a redundant relator and delete r, since each is a consequence of the other. Now r−1=x7−1w with w=(x1⋯x6)−1, which contains no x7. There are no other relators, so the legal inverse dictionary move deletes x7 and r−1. The resulting presentation is ⟨x1,…,x6∣∅⟩. Hence [L2] identifies G with the free group on these six generators.

3.1L3step 2.1∎

By [L3] that free group has no nonidentity element of finite order. An isomorphism preserves powers and the identity, so G is torsion-free.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01Open item page →

An overlap of exactly one sixth shows that the strict C prime(1/6) inequality is not cosmetic

Statement refuted

An overlap of exactly one sixth still counts as satisfying the strict C′(1/6) convention.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The relator set R={abcdef,aghijk}.

[L1]

The page's convention is strict: C′(1/6) demands ∣p∣<∣r∣/6 for every piece p in every relator r (The small-cancellation conditions C(lambda) and C prime(lambda)).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1given

The common initial segment of the two relators is the one-letter word a, so a is a piece. Both relators have length 6.

2.1L1step 1.1algebra

Hence the piece length is exactly 1=6/6. This meets the weak inequality ∣p∣≤∣r∣/6, but it does not satisfy the strict inequality required by [L1].

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

So the strict convention is genuinely stronger: exact one-sixth overlap fails it. This refutes the statement.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01Open item page →

No proper-power relators alone do not prevent torsion outside small cancellation

Statement refuted

No proper-power relators alone prevent torsion, even without any small- cancellation hypothesis.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The presentation G=⟨a,b∣ab2,a2b⟩.

[L1]

The torsion-free consequence on this page needs the small-cancellation hypothesis as well as the no-proper-power hypothesis (A C prime(1/6) presentation with no proper-power relators defines a torsion-free group).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1given

As in FALSE: a presentation with no proper-power relators is automatically torsion-free, neither relator ab2 nor a2b is a proper power.

2.1step 1.1algebra

The same substitution calculation gives a=b−2 and then b−4b=1, so b3=1. Moreover the assignment a↦t, b↦t to the cyclic group C3=⟨t∣t3=1⟩ satisfies both relators, so it induces a surjective homomorphism G→C3. Thus G has nontrivial torsion.

3.1L1step 2.1∎

Therefore no-proper-power relators do not by themselves prevent torsion. By [L1], the missing small-cancellation hypothesis is essential.

Sources