Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-09
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.

The infinite-model categoricity test for completeness

Statement

In ZFC, let T be a consistent sentence theory in an explicitly countable language. Assume every model of T is infinite and any two models of T of a fixed infinite cardinality κ are isomorphic. Then T is syntactically complete.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Consistency, the no-finite-model hypothesis, categoricity in infinite κ, and AC.

[F1]

Infinite models can be enlarged elementarily to any cardinal at least their size and the language size. (Upward Löwenheim–Skolem, including elementary extensions)

[F2]

Infinite models have elementary substructures of any infinite size between the language bound and their own size. (Downward Löwenheim–Skolem with parameters)

[F3]

Syntactic completeness means proving one side of every sentence decision. (Consistency and syntactic completeness)

[F4]

For countable languages, semantic consequence equals provability, and consistent theories have models. (Completeness for explicitly countable set languages)

[A1]

AC is assumed for the cardinal-size theorems. (The Axiom of Choice)

Proof

1.1

If T were not complete in the sense of F3, some sentence σ would satisfy Tσ and T¬σ. By F4 these mean T⊭σ and T⊭¬σ. Thus there are models A,B of T with A¬σ and Bσ, respectively. The hypothesis on T makes both infinite.

F3F4
2.1

For each of A,B, if its size is at most κ, apply F1; if it is at least κ, apply F2 with empty parameter set. Since the language is countable and κ infinite, both language bounds hold. Under A1 this produces A,B of size exactly κ, elementarily equivalent respectively to A,B. At equality take the structure itself. Consequently A¬σ and Bσ, and both satisfy T.

F1F2A1step 1.1
3.1

Categoricity gives an isomorphism h:AB. It preserves values of terms by induction on terms: variables and constants are preserved, and each function commutes with h. Hence it preserves and reflects equality and relation atoms. Negation and conjunction retain this equivalence; existential witnesses transfer forward by h and backward by its inverse. Formula induction therefore makes isomorphic structures agree on every sentence, contradicting their opposite decisions of σ. No such undecided sentence exists, so T is complete.

givenstep 2.1

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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