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.
On a two-element chain, an incidence function with a zero diagonal value is not convolution-invertible
Statement refuted
Every incidence function on a finite poset is convolution-invertible.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A two-element chain , a nonzero commutative ring , and the incidence function with , , and .
An incidence function is convolution-invertible exactly when every diagonal value is a unit (An incidence function is convolution-invertible if and only if every diagonal value is a unit).
The convolution identity has (The delta and zeta incidence functions).
Counterexample
If were a convolution inverse, evaluation at would give .
But an inverse equation requires , and because the ring is nonzero.
Therefore is not invertible, in agreement with [L1] because its diagonal value is not a unit.
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: 23 results over 15 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
- F. Gotti, Incidence Algebras, MIT 18.211 notes (standard reference, not scraped)