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.

Triangulated Categories — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Concrete cone, octahedral, and splitting calculations, together with the guards against the most tempting false generalizations.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

The split distinguished triangle

Example

For objects X,Y of a triangulated category, consider X(10)XY(0  1)YX[1].

Verification

Given: The displayed data.

1.1

This is the canonical biproduct triangle, hence is distinguished.

given
2.1

Its final map is zero, so it also exhibits the splitting criterion and the evident section/retraction.

step 1.1given
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

The cone triangle of multiplication by m

Example

For mZ, the map m:S0(Z)S0(Z) has cone the two-term complex ZmZ in degrees 1,0. Its standard cone triangle is therefore S0(Z)mS0(Z)[ZmZ]S0(Z)[1].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The displayed data.

[F1]

The mapping cone has its stated degreewise direct-sum and differential formulas (The mapping cone of a chain map).

[F2]

Passing a chain-level cone triangle to the homotopy category gives its standard cone triangle (Standard cone triangle in the homotopy category).

Verification

1.1

By [F1], the cone has DnCn1 in degree n, so only degrees 1 and 0 remain and its differential is multiplication by m.

F1given
2.1

By [F2], passing this explicit cone triangle to K(Z-Mod) makes it a standard cone triangle.

F2step 1.1given
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

The long exact Hom sequence of a cone triangle

Example

Applying K(Z-Mod)(S0(Z),) to the cone triangle of multiplication by m gives the exact segment ZmZK(S0Z,[ZmZ])0.

Verification

Given: The displayed data.

1.1

The displayed cone triangle is distinguished.

given
2.1

The representable long exact Hom theorem supplies the exact segment, and K(S0Z,S0Z)Z identifies its first map with multiplication by m.

step 1.1given
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07 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 octahedron for two composable maps of stalk complexes

Example

For S0(Z)mS0(Z)nS0(Z), the three two-term cones of m, nm, and n are joined by a distinguished triangle Cone(m)Cone(nm)Cone(n)Cone(m)[1].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The displayed data.

[F1]

The three-cone calculation supplies the comparison maps α and β (The three-cone calculation for a composite chain map).

[F2]

The octahedral axiom supplies a signed distinguished triangle joining the three cone objects (The octahedral axiom gives a triangle relating the cones of f, g, and gf).

Verification

1.1

The maps are composable chain maps of stalk complexes.

given
2.1

By [F1] the three-cone calculation provides the comparison maps α and β. Applying [F2] in K(Ab) supplies the signed fourth face and proves that the resulting triangle is distinguished.

F1F2step 1.1given
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07 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 thick subcategory of acyclic complexes

Example

For an abelian category A, the acyclic complexes in K(A) form a thick subcategory, and the cone of every quasi-isomorphism belongs to it.

Verification

Given: An abelian category A and the displayed data.

1.1

Thickness is the preceding proposition.

given
2.1

A quasi-isomorphism has an acyclic cone, so its standard cone object lies in this thick subcategory.

step 1.1given
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedaudited 2026-09-07Open item page →

A three-term zero-composite diagram that is not distinguished

Statement refuted

In K(Z-Mod), the diagram S0Z0S0Z[1]S0Z[1] with all three displayed maps zero has zero consecutive composites, but it is not distinguished.

Counterexample

Given: The displayed data.

1.1

All consecutive composites are zero because every displayed map is zero.

given
2.1

If it were distinguished, it would be isomorphic to the standard cone triangle of 0:S0Z0, whose final map is the identity of S0Z[1]; no triangle isomorphism can turn that nonzero map into zero.

step 1.1given
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: Literature-sourcedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Nonuniqueness of a TR3 completion

Statement refuted

TR3 completions need not be unique. In K(Z-Mod), take the standard cone triangle of the zero map S0ZS0Z[1]. The zero square on its first two terms has two distinct completions.

Counterexample

Given: The displayed data.

1.1

The cone is S0Z[1]S0Z[1]. Besides the zero third component, take the chain map whose matrix has the identity from the second summand to the first and zero in all other entries.

given
2.1

Both third components kill the cone inclusion and are killed by the cone projection, so each completes the same zero square; they differ on the second summand and hence are distinct in K(Z-Mod).

step 1.1given

Sources