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.

7 results · all verified · 7 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; all 7 also cleared it.

Ext and Balanced Resolutions — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This draft compares the projective and injective resolution constructions of Ext. The comparison uses a first-quadrant Hom double complex with direct-sum totalisation on finite diagonals.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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.

Ext zero as Hom in both constructions

Example

Write the degree-zero identifications in the projective and injective complexes and compare them through balanced Ext.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Objects M,N in an abelian category, an augmented projective resolution PM, and an augmented injective resolution NI.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The augmentation identifies M=coker(d1:P1P0), so left exactness of Hom(,N) identifies ker(Hom(P0,N)Hom(P1,N)) with Hom(M,N). Thus ExtP0(M,N)=Hom(M,N).

givenalgebra
2.1

Likewise N=ker(d0:I0I1), and left exactness of Hom(M,) gives ker(Hom(M,I0)Hom(M,I1))=Hom(M,N). The two identifications are the degree-zero maps used in balanced Ext0(M,N).

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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.

Ext from a two-term projective resolution

Example

Apply Hom(-,N) to a displayed two-term projective resolution and identify Ext^0 and Ext^1 as its kernel and cokernel, with higher groups zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An exact sequence 0P1uP0M0 with P0,P1 projective, and an object N.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Applying Hom(,N) gives the cochain complex 0Hom(P0,N)uHom(P1,N)0, where u(f)=fu. Its degree-zero kernel is Hom(M,N).

givenalgebra
2.1

Consequently Ext1(M,N)=cokeru, while Extq(M,N)=0 for q2 because the displayed complex has no terms in those degrees. The projective-resolution computation is independent of this chosen two-term resolution.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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.

Ext of a cyclic abelian group by an abelian group

Example

Use the resolution 0 -> Z --n--> Z -> Z/n -> 0 to calculate Ext^1_Z(Z/n,A)=A/nA and show the higher terms vanish.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An abelian group A and an integer n2.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The sequence 0ZnZZ/nZ0 is a projective resolution: multiplication by n is injective and its cokernel is Z/nZ. Applying HomZ(,A) gives 0AnA0.

givenalgebra
2.1

Therefore ExtZ1(Z/nZ,A)=coker(n:AA)=A/nA, and the same two-term complex has zero cohomology in every degree q2.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

The Hom double complex in low bidegrees

Example

Display K^{0,0}, K^{1,0}, K^{0,1}, and K^{1,1}, label the two unsigned differentials, and compute the signed total differential in degrees zero and one.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Differentials dP:P1P0 and dI:I0I1 of supplied resolutions, and Kp,q=Hom(Pp,Iq).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The low square has K0,0=Hom(P0,I0), K1,0=Hom(P1,I0), K0,1=Hom(P0,I1), and K1,1=Hom(P1,I1). Its unsigned arrows are dh(f)=fdP and dv(f)=dIf, and dhdv=dvdh on each f.

givenalgebra
2.1

With DKp,q=dh+(1)pdv, Tot0=K0,0 and Tot1=K1,0K0,1, so D(f)=(fdP,dIf). For (a,b)Tot1, its K1,1 component is dIa+bdP, displaying the sign which makes D2=0.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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 Ext dimension shift

Example

Use the displayed cyclic-group projective presentation to identify Ext^{n+1}(M,N) with Ext^n(Omega M,N), distinguishing the low-degree exact segment.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: M=Z/nZ with n2, its presentation 0ZnZM0, and an abelian group N.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The first syzygy of M for this presentation is ΩMZ, which is free and hence projective. The low-degree portion of the long exact sequence is 0Hom(M,N)NnNExt1(M,N)0.

givenalgebra
2.1

For every q1, dimension shifting gives Extq+1(M,N)Extq(Z,N)=0. This does not replace the displayed low-degree segment: its cokernel is the generally nonzero group N/nN=Ext1(M,N).

step 1.1algebra
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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.

Positive Ext need not vanish for an injective first variable

Statement refuted

Use Q/Z as an injective abelian group in the first variable and calculate a nonzero Ext^1 against a suitable second variable, separating the correct variance from the false symmetry.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The abelian category of abelian groups and the short exact sequence 0ZQQ/Z0.

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The group Q/Z is divisible, hence injective, so it is an injective object in the first variable. The displayed sequence is an extension of Q/Z by Z.

givenalgebra
2.1

This extension does not split: a retraction r:QZ would satisfy rZ=1, whereas every homomorphism QZ is zero (if r(1)=a, then a=r(1/m)m is divisible by every m). Hence it represents a nonzero element of ExtZ1(Q/Z,Z), refuting the asserted first-variable vanishing.

step 1.1algebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06 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.

Naturality of the balance isomorphism

Example

For maps M' -> M and N -> N' draw the square of projective and injective Ext computations and verify that both routes agree through the total-complex comparison.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Morphisms a:MM and b:NN and supplied projective and injective resolution comparison maps lifting them.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Precomposition by the projective comparison for a and postcomposition by the injective comparison for b define a morphism of first-quadrant Hom double complexes Hom(P(M),I(N))Hom(P(M),I(N)). It commutes with both dh and dv.

givenalgebra
2.1

The induced map on the total complex restricts on the projective edge and the injective edge to the usual maps on their Hom complexes. Passing to cohomology makes the two edge-to-total quasi-isomorphism squares commute; therefore the balance isomorphism intertwines Extq(M,N)Extq(M,N) for every q.

step 1.1algebra

Sources