Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14
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.

Positive-characteristic failure of Lie's theorem

Counterexample

Let k be a field of characteristic p>0. The solvable Lie algebra a=kx⊕ky with [x,y]=y has a p-dimensional irreducible module V with basis v0,…,vp−1 and action

xvi=ivi,yvi=vi+1,

where the second index is read modulo p. In particular, the action has no common eigenline, so Lie's theorem fails in positive characteristic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k of characteristic p>0, the displayed affine algebra, and the displayed operators X,Y on V.

[L1]

Lie's theorem assumes an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and concludes the existence of a common eigenvector (Lie's theorem).

[L2]

Solvability is termination of the derived series (Derived series and solvable Lie algebras).

[L3]

A representation carries brackets to operator commutators (Representations of Lie algebras).

[L4]

A nonzero representation is irreducible when it has no nonzero proper stable subspace (Irreducible, completely reducible, and faithful representations).

Refutation

technique · counterexample
1.1L2givenalgebra

The only nonzero basis bracket of a spans ky, and [ky,ky]=0. Hence a(1)=ky and a(2)=0, so a is solvable by [L2].

1.2L3givenalgebra

For 0≤i<p−1, (XY−YX)vi=(i+1−i)vi+1=Yvi. At the wraparound index, (XY−YX)vp−1=(0−(p−1))v0=v0=Yvp−1 in characteristic p; this includes p=2. Thus [X,Y]=Y, and the other basis-bracket identities are automatic, so x↦X, y↦Y is a representation by [L3].

2.1L4step 1.2algebra

Let 0≠W⊆V be stable under X and Y, and choose a nonzero w=∑jcjvj∈W with ci≠0. The scalars 0,1,…,p−1 are distinct in k. Therefore the Lagrange polynomial Pi(T)=∏j≠i(T−j)/(i−j) is defined and satisfies Pi(X)w=civi∈W. Hence vi∈W. Repeated application of the cyclic operator Y puts every basis vector vj in W, so W=V. By [L4], V is irreducible.

3.1L1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Since p≥2, this irreducible module has dimension greater than one. A common eigenvector would span a nonzero proper stable line, contradicting step 2.1. Thus the solvable algebra in step 1.1 and the representation in step 1.2 violate the common-eigenvector conclusion when characteristic zero is removed from [L1]. Every selection is from fixed finite coordinates, so no choice principle is used.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

13 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