Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)
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.

Sum and product totalisations on an infinite diagonal

Statement refuted

The two totalisations of an infinite-diagonal double complex need not have the same homology. In particular it is false that they are always isomorphic. Compute the witness Cj,j=Z/2 for j0, with all other components and all arrows zero.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Direct sum total complex of a double complex and Product total complex of a double complex define the diagonal total objects and their differentials.

[F2]

Countable sequence groups and tail filtrations gives S=k(N), P=kN, their universal properties and their distinct countable/uncountable cardinalities, with k=Z/2.

[F3]

Homology object of a chain complex defines homology as cycles modulo boundaries.

Counterexample

Given: The zero-arrow double complex in the statement, as in Sum and product totalisations can differ on infinite diagonals. Its zero composites satisfy all double-complex identities.

1.1

Only total degree zero has nonzero components. Consequently Tot0C=S and Tot0ΠC=P by [F1, F2]. All other total degrees and every total differential vanish. In either complex every degree-zero element is a cycle and the boundary subgroup is zero. Thus the homology groups in degree zero are S and P respectively, and all other homology groups are zero.

F1F2F3
2.1

The canonical comparison has degree-zero component the finite-support inclusion. The tuple (1,1,) has infinite support, so it is not in the image; its homology class is unchanged because there are no boundaries. Even an abstract homology isomorphism is impossible: S has a bijection with N, while every purported enumeration e:NP misses the sequence yj=1e(j)j. Therefore a bijection SP would contradict [F2].

F2F3step 1.1
3.1

The support includes (j,j) for every positive j, so is not first quadrant and is infinite on its sole nonzero diagonal. Hence neither first-quadrant finite-diagonal comparison nor finite-filtration convergence is contradicted. The index j=0 contributes one copy of k, the omitted total degrees are genuinely zero, and all constructions and diagonalization are explicit and choice-free.

F1F2step 1.1step 2.1

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