Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-16
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 E=(0,2)(1,2) and map both summands by inclusion to B=(0,2). This map is a surjective local homeomorphism but is not a covering map.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The objects, hypotheses, and choice principles stated above.

[F1]

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).

[F2]

For a covering p:EB, the cardinality of p1(b) is locally constant as a function of bB. If B is connected, all fibres are equinumerous. (The cardinality of a covering fibre is locally constant and is constant on a connected base).

[F3]

The underlying set. Let I be a set and let Xi be a set for each iI. The disjoint union is iIXi  :=  iI(Xi×{i}), whose elements are the pairs (x,i) with iI and xXi. For jI the j-th canonical injection is κj:XjiIXi,κj(x):=(x,j). The construction is what makes the word "disjoint" honest. Each κj is injective (def-injection-surjection-bijection), since (x,j)=(x,j) forces x=x; the images κj[Xj]=Xj×{j} are pairwise disjoint, since the second coordinate determines j; and their union is the whole set. So no assumption that the Xi are disjoint as sets is needed, and none is made: the tag i separates the copies even when Xi=Xi for ii. (The disjoint union (coproduct) iXi with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is).

[F4]

Throughout, R is the complete ordered field (def-complete-ordered-field, def-ordered-field) with its order (def-real-order). A subset IR is order-convex when x,yI and xzy imply zI, and the intervals of R are the nine listed forms, among them [a,b]={x:axb} and (a,b)={x:a<x<b}. (Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Let the domain be the disjoint union of (0,2) and (1,2) and map both components by inclusion onto the base (0,2).

givenF3F4
2.1

The first component makes the map surjective and each inclusion is a local homeomorphism.

step 1.1F1F3
3.1

The fibre has one point at 1 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 1.

step 2.1F1F2F3
4.1

The preceding construction and implications establish the assertion.

step 3.1

Depends on

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