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.
Relations and on a two-element set with
Statement refuted
Refuted claim: for all relations and . With , , and
the two composites are and , which are different. Composition of relations is associative (, , , , and for a relation from to ) but not commutative.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , , , and .
holds if and only if and for some (The inverse relation , the composite , and the restriction ).
A relation is a set every element of which is an ordered pair (Relation, , , , and the specialisations "relation from to " and "relation on ").
if and only if and ( if and only if and ).
is the set whose elements are exactly and , and (The unordered pair and the singleton ).
There is exactly one set with no elements, written (There is exactly one set with no elements, written ).
If every satisfies if and only if , then (The Axiom of Extensionality: ).
holds if and only if for some and some (The Cartesian product ).
Counterexample
, because has an element and has none; and and are relations on , each with one pair, both of whose coordinates lie in .
: the only pair of is , and the only pair of whose first coordinate is is , so the only element of is .
: the only pair of is , and the only pair of whose first coordinate is is , so the only element of is .
and are different, since equality of ordered pairs would force ; so the two composites have different elements and , while the associativity of composition is unaffected.
Depends on
- The inverse relation $R^{-1}$, the composite $S \circ R$, and the restriction $R \restriction A$
- Relation, $\operatorname{dom} R$, $\operatorname{ran} R$, $\operatorname{fld} R$, and the specialisations "relation from $A$ to $B$" and "relation on $A$"
- The Kuratowski ordered pair $(a,b) := \{\{a\},\{a,b\}\}$
- The unordered pair $\{x,y\}$ and the singleton $\{x\} = \{x,x\}$
- There is exactly one set with no elements, written $\varnothing$
- $T \circ (S \circ R) = (T \circ S) \circ R$, $(S \circ R)^{-1} = R^{-1} \circ S^{-1}$, $(R^{-1})^{-1} = R$, $\operatorname{dom}(R^{-1}) = \operatorname{ran} R$, and $\Delta_B \circ R = R = R \circ \Delta_A$ for a relation $R$ from $A$ to $B$
- The Axiom of Extensionality: $\forall x\,\forall y\,(\forall z\,(z \in x \leftrightarrow z \in y) \to x = y)$
- $(a,b) = (c,d)$ if and only if $a = c$ and $b = d$
- The Cartesian product $A \times B := \{\, z \in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(A \cup B)) : \exists a \in A\ \exists b \in B\ z = (a,b) \,\}$
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: 24 results over 12 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
- Composition of relations (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- B. Kaya, MATH 320 Set Theory (METU), Def. 12 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Binary relation (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)