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 conormal left map with nonzero kernel
Statement refuted
“For an ideal of a ring , the conormal map is injective.”
Counterexample
Let be a field, , and let with quotient . In the conormal sequence the class is nonzero, but its image is in , because in . Hence the left map has a nonzero kernel, in every characteristic: for the element is already in , and for it becomes after the identification. In particular the sequence is only right exact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field , the polynomial algebra , the principal ideal , the quotient and the class .
Conormal exact sequence for an algebra quotient: for a ring map , an ideal and , the sequence is exact with sending the class of to ; no injectivity of is asserted.
Polynomial differentials are free with : is free with basis , and for every , where is the -derivation with ; for the powers this gives .
Derivation of an algebra: the map is a -derivation, so it is additive, kills , and satisfies the Leibniz rule.
Over an integral domain, degrees add under multiplication of nonzero polynomials: in an integral domain, nonzero polynomials satisfy and .
Verification
Apply [F1] with : the sequence is exact, sends the class of to , and the statement of [F1] explicitly leaves injectivity of open.
The powers of the ideal: and , since is generated by the products of two elements of , and . Hence . The class is nonzero: if , there would be with , so equals for and is impossible for , by the degree rule of [F4] applied in the integral domain .
The target: by [F2] the module is free with basis , so as -modules, via ; here is written as usual and in because .
The image of the class: by step 1.1, . By [F2] the derivation satisfies , the coefficient being read in ; by the Leibniz rule [F3] this is the same as obtained from .
Under the identification of step 1.3 the element of step 2.1 is , and this is since in . So , while by step 1.2; the class therefore lies in the nonzero kernel of , in every characteristic: for the coefficient is already zero in , and for it is nonzero in but its image in vanishes.
Consequently the left map of the conormal sequence is not injective, so the sequence is exact at and at but not at ; the sequence is only right exact. The witness is the single element , whose image is . This refutes the displayed statement and shows why injectivity of is deliberately excluded from [F1].
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Stacks Algebra 10.131.9 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Vakil 22.2.12-13, pp.579-580 (standard reference, not scraped)