Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-26
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.

An indefinite proper-equivalence class can contain a cycle of reduced forms

Statement refuted

The uniqueness theorem for reduced positive-definite forms does not extend to positive discriminant. Under Granville's positive-discriminant convention, both

f=(6,6,1)andg=(1,6,6)

are reduced forms of discriminant 60, and they are properly equivalent.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The forms f=(6,6,1) and g=(1,6,6).

[L1]

Positive-definite proper-equivalence classes contain exactly one reduced form (Each proper-equivalence class of positive-definite integral binary quadratic forms contains exactly one reduced form).

[F1]

The discriminant of (a,b,c) is b24ac (The discriminant of a binary quadratic form).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Both forms have discriminant 60, since 624(6)(1)=60 and 624(1)(6)=60.

F1givenalgebra
1.2

The matrix M=(8776) has determinant 1, and direct substitution gives fM=g. Thus f and g are properly equivalent.

givenalgebra
2.1

Under Granville's positive-discriminant convention, a form of discriminant d>0 is reduced when 0<db<2a<d+b. Since 7<60<8, one has 0<606<2 and 13<60+6<14. Hence 0<606<12<60+6 for f and 0<606<2<60+6 for g, so both are reduced in that convention.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

The two reduced forms f and g are distinct, yet step 1.2 puts them in one proper-equivalence class. So the uniqueness statement [L1], which is true for positive-definite forms, does not extend to positive discriminant.

L1step 2.1step 1.2

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

6 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