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.

10 results · all verified · 2 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 8 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Chain Complexes and Homology — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples specialise the categorical constructions on the main page to abelian groups and modules, where kernels, images, quotients, and induced maps can be computed explicitly. They also supply the promised counterexamples to the two false converses kept on the A page: a quasi-isomorphism need not be an isomorphism of complexes, and homology does not determine a chain map.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

A zero-differential complex has homology equal to each term

Example

Let C be a chain complex whose every differential is zero. Then Hn(C)Cn for every n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A chain complex C with dn=0 for all n.

[L1]

The zero complex and zero differentials are legitimate chain-complex data (Zero complex and stalk complex).

[L2]

Homology is the quotient Zn(C)/Bn(C) (Homology object of a chain complex).

[L3]

The identity of an object is a kernel of the zero map out of it, and also is a cokernel of the zero map into it (The cokernel of the zero map out of the zero object is the target, and dually for kernels).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Since dn=0, [L3] identifies the cycle inclusion with 1Cn:CnCn, so Zn(C)Cn. Likewise the image of dn+1=0 is the zero object, so the boundary object is Bn(C)0.

L1L3givenalgebra
2.1

Substituting those identities into [L2] gives Hn(C)=Cn/0Cn.

L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

A two-term complex has kernel and cokernel homology

Example

Let R be a ring and let f:MN be a homomorphism. Regard 0MfN0 as a chain complex with M in degree 1 and N in degree 0. Then H1ker(f),H0coker(f), and all other homology objects are zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A module homomorphism f:MN.

[L1]

Module categories are abelian (Modules over a ring form an abelian category).

[L2]

Cycles, boundaries, and homology are defined by kernels, images, and the quotient Zn/Bn (Cycle and boundary subobjects of a complex, Homology object of a chain complex).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

In degree 1, the outgoing differential is f, so Z1=ker(f) and B1=0. In degree 0, the incoming differential is f and the outgoing one is 0, so Z0=N and B0=im(f). Every other term is zero.

L1L2givenalgebra
2.1

Therefore [L2] gives H1=ker(f),H0=N/im(f)=coker(f), and Hn=0 for n0,1.

L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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 multiplication-by-m complex computes a cyclic group

Example

For a nonzero integer m, the two-term complex 0Z×mZ0 has H1=0 and H0Z/mZ.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonzero integer m.

[L1]

The two-term homology computation is H1=ker(f) and H0=coker(f) (A two-term complex has kernel and cokernel homology).

[L2]

Ab is an abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Multiplication by a nonzero integer on Z has zero kernel, because mx=0 forces x=0. Its cokernel is the quotient group Z/mZ.

L2givenalgebra
2.1

Applying [L1] to f=×m yields H1=0,H0Z/mZ.

L1step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

An exact short sequence as an acyclic three-term complex

Example

The short exact sequence 0Z×2ZZ/2Z0 becomes an acyclic three-term chain complex when placed in degrees 2, 1, and 0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The short exact sequence 0Z×2ZZ/2Z0.

[L1]

Ab is an abelian category (Modules over a ring form an abelian category).

[L2]

An exact sequence is a chain complex, and its exactness agrees with the earlier exact-sequence notion (An exact sequence is a complex, and its exactness agrees with the earlier notion).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The displayed sequence is exact in Ab: multiplication by 2 is injective, the quotient map onto Z/2Z is surjective, and its kernel is the even subgroup.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

By [L2], placing this exact sequence in consecutive degrees gives a chain complex that is exact at every nonzero term. Hence its homology vanishes in every degree, so it is acyclic.

L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

A split exact complex contracts degree by degree

Example

Consider the split short exact sequence 0ZiZZpZ0, where i(a)=(a,0) and p(a,b)=b. As a three-term chain complex in degrees 2, 1, and 0, it admits explicit maps h1(a,b)=a,h0(c)=(0,c) satisfying dh+hd=1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The maps i(a)=(a,0) and p(a,b)=b.

[L1]

Split short exact sequences are the ones equipped with compatible section and retraction data (Split short exact sequence in an abelian category, Splitting lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

Ab is an abelian category (Modules over a ring form an abelian category).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The sequence is split: r(a,b)=a is a retraction of i, and s(c)=(0,c) is a section of p. This is exactly the structure in [L1].

L1L2givenalgebra
2.1

With h1=r and h0=s, one computes h1i=1Z,ih1+h0p=1ZZ,ph0=1Z. So the identity on this complex is written degreewise as dh+hd, which is the promised contraction formula.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

A chain map computed on cycles, boundaries, and homology

Example

Let C be the two-term complex 0Z×2Z0, and let D be 0Z×4Z0. The maps f1=1Z and f0=×2 define a chain map f:CD. It induces the zero map on H1 and the inclusion Z/2ZZ/4Z,xˉ2x, on H0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The complexes C,D and the family f1=1Z, f0=×2.

[L1]

Ab is an abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).

[L2]

A chain map induces a well-defined homology map (A chain map induces a well-defined map on homology).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The chain condition holds because (×4)1Z=(×2)(×2). Also Z1(C)=Z1(D)=0, B0(C)=2Z, and B0(D)=4Z. Hence H1(C)=H1(D)=0, H0(C)Z/2Z, and H0(D)Z/4Z.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

By [L2], the induced homology map comes from the degree-0 map f0=×2 on cycles. It sends the boundary subgroup 2Z into 4Z, so on quotients it is xˉ2x. In degree 1 the homology groups are zero, so the induced map there is zero.

L2step 1.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

A quasi-isomorphism that is not an isomorphism of complexes

Statement refuted

Every quasi-isomorphism of complexes is an isomorphism of complexes.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The inclusion of the zero complex into 0Z1ZZ0.

[L1]

Ab is an abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).

[L2]

The A-page false statement is indeed false (FALSE: every quasi-isomorphism is an isomorphism of complexes).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The target complex is acyclic, because both the kernel and cokernel of 1Z are zero. The source zero complex is acyclic as well, so the inclusion induces isomorphisms on all homology groups.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

The target complex is nonzero while the source is zero, so the inclusion is not invertible. Thus this is a concrete counterexample, as asserted by [L2].

L2step 1.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

Two distinct chain maps inducing the same homology map

Statement refuted

Two chain maps with the same induced maps on homology must be equal.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The complex 0Z1ZZ0 and its two endomorphisms f=1C and g=0C.

[L1]

Ab is an abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).

[L2]

The corresponding A-page false statement is false (FALSE: a chain map is determined by its maps on homology).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The complex is acyclic, so every homology group is zero. The maps f and g are distinct because their degree-1 components are 1Z and 0.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

Since all homology groups vanish, both induced homology maps are zero in every degree. Therefore fg but they induce the same homology map, as claimed in [L2].

L2step 1.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

A subcomplex and its quotient complex

Example

Let C be the two-term complex 0Z×2Z0, and let S be the subcomplex with S1=0 and S0=2Z. Then the quotient complex C/S is 0Z0Z/2Z0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The complexes C and S just displayed.

[L1]

A subcomplex is a degreewise subobject stable under the differentials (Subcomplex).

[L2]

A quotient complex is obtained by quotienting degreewise and descending the differential (Quotient complex).

[L3]

Ab is an abelian category (Modules over a ring form an abelian category).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The family S is a subcomplex: the only nontrivial check is that d1(S1)=0 lands in 2Z=S0. Thus [L1] applies.

L1L3givenalgebra
2.1

By [L2], the quotient has terms C1/S1Z and C0/S0Z/2Z. The descended differential is zero because 2x lies in 2Z for every representative xZ, so changing representatives does not change the class. Hence the quotient complex is as displayed.

L2step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements 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 Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. 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.

Euler-Poincare for a finite complex

Example

Consider the split exact three-term complex 0ZiZZpZ0, with i(a)=(a,0) and p(a,b)=b. Then χ(C)=12+1=0=n(1)nrank(Hn(C)).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The split exact complex just displayed.

[L1]

Ab is an abelian category (Abelian groups form an abelian category).

[L2]

The Euler-Poincare formula holds for bounded complexes of finite-rank free abelian groups with finite-rank free homology (Euler-Poincare formula for finite free complexes).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The complex is split exact, hence acyclic, so every homology group is zero. Its chain groups have ranks 1, 2, and 1. Therefore χ(C)=12+1=0, while the alternating sum of homology ranks is also 0.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

This agrees with the theorem [L2], so the example is a direct Euler-Poincare computation in a finite free complex.

L2step 1.1

Sources