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.
A surjective local homeomorphism need not be a covering map
Statement refuted
Let and map both summands by inclusion to . This map is a surjective local homeomorphism but is not a covering map.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The objects, hypotheses, and choice principles stated above.
Every covering map is a surjective local homeomorphism, and each of its fibres is discrete in the subspace topology. (Covering maps are surjective local homeomorphisms with discrete fibres).
For a covering , the cardinality of is locally constant as a function of . If is connected, all fibres are equinumerous. (The cardinality of a covering fibre is locally constant and is constant on a connected base).
The underlying set. Let be a set and let be a set for each . The disjoint union is whose elements are the pairs with and . For the -th canonical injection is The construction is what makes the word "disjoint" honest. Each is injective (def-injection-surjection-bijection), since forces ; the images are pairwise disjoint, since the second coordinate determines ; and their union is the whole set. So no assumption that the are disjoint as sets is needed, and none is made: the tag separates the copies even when for . (The disjoint union (coproduct) with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is).
Throughout, is the complete ordered field (def-complete-ordered-field, def-ordered-field) with its order (def-real-order). A subset is order-convex when and imply , and the intervals of are the nine listed forms, among them and . (Intervals of : the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).
Counterexample
Let the domain be the disjoint union of and and map both components by inclusion onto the base .
The first component makes the map surjective and each inclusion is a local homeomorphism.
The fibre has one point at and two immediately to its right, so local constancy of sheet number rules out a covering; equivalently, the second component supplies only a one-sided partial sheet above every neighbourhood of .
The preceding construction and implications establish the assertion.
Depends on
- Covering maps are surjective local homeomorphisms with discrete fibres
- The cardinality of a covering fibre is locally constant and is constant on a connected base
- The disjoint union (coproduct) $\bigsqcup_i X_i$ with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is
- Intervals of $\mathbb{R}$: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 37 results over 11 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Allen Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, §1.3 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Marco Gualtieri, MAT1300 Week 4 Term 2, §1.6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Omar Antolín Camarena, Proper local homeomorphisms and covering maps (standard reference, not scraped)