Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-06 rests on unproved material (inherited)
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.

Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Ext can be computed from any projective resolution of the first variable

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Dependent Choice and the hypotheses of The balanced Ext bifunctor. If Q is any other supplied projective resolution datum on the same class of objects, then for every M,N and n0, ExtAn(M,N)HnHom(Q,N), naturally in M and N. In particular, the formula computes Ext from any individual projective resolution Q(M)M; the resulting objectwise isomorphism is canonical on cohomology.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Dependent Choice, the balanced Ext hypotheses, supplied data P,Q, objects M,N, and n0.

[F1]

Projective comparison maps lifting any object morphism exist: Projective comparison maps exist.

[F2]

Two comparison maps lifting the same morphism are chain-homotopic: Projective comparison maps are unique up to chain homotopy.

[F3]

Resolutions of the same object are homotopy equivalent: Projective resolutions of the same object are homotopy equivalent over that object.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Choose aM:Q(M)P(M) lifting 1M. A reverse comparison is its homotopy inverse since both composites lift the identity and [F2] compares them with identity chain maps.

F1F2F3choose
2.1

Precomposition gives aM:Hom(P(M),N)Hom(Q(M),N). A homotopy ab=dh+hd induces the cochain homotopy sn(f)=fhn1, with s0=0. Thus Hn(aM) is a choice-independent isomorphism. Its source is ExtPn(M,N) by Ext via a projective resolution of the first variable, hence balanced Ext by The balanced Ext bifunctor.

step 1.1F2algebra
3.1

For u:MM, choose lifts P(u) and Q(u) by [F1]. Precomposition defines their cohomology actions independently of the lifts by [F2]. Identities and composition follow because composites lift the object composites. The maps P(u)aM and aMQ(u) both lift u, so [F2] makes them homotopic. Precomposition and cohomology therefore give the required contravariant naturality square in M.

F1F2step 2.1construct
4.1

Postcomposition by v:NN commutes exactly with precomposition by aM. This gives naturality in N and hence both variables. For a single supplied resolution Q(M), steps 1.1–2.1 already give the canonical objectwise isomorphism. No simultaneous class-wide choice of comparison maps is required.

step 2.1step 3.1algebra

Depends on

Used by

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