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.
A universal-meagre stage absorbs an old nowhere-dense tree
Example
Let be an old perfect nowhere-dense binary tree and let be a condition. The absorption lemma gives a direct extension whose generic F-sigma code contains . When the two trees have a level beyond at which the witness tree has at least as many nodes as , the extension has the explicit finite graft below. The singleton closed nowhere-dense set has a separate one-node perfect graft, displayed level by level below; its prefix tree is not called perfect. Below the distinguished weakest condition, first take the explicit nontrivial condition of the UM definition.
Verification
Given: A condition of and an old perfect nowhere-dense tree , with the generic tree of Shelah's universal-meagre forcing.
[F1] Shelah's universal-meagre forcing: conditions, order, and the containment of every witness tree of a generic condition in the generic tree.
[F2] A universal-meagre generic absorbs old nowhere-dense sets: the meagre envelope is formed from a fixed canonical enumeration of all finite-prefix rearrangements of the generic tree.
[F3] Trees and their bodies: tree bodies and prefix closure; the section and graft formulas are verified below.
[F4] Nowhere dense, meagre, residual, and comeagre subsets of a topological space: nowhere density means that the closure has empty interior; a finite union of closed nowhere-dense sets is closed nowhere dense, since any cylinder can be refined successively to avoid each of the finitely many sets.
For the explicit matched-width case, fix a level satisfying ; this is an additional hypothesis for the display, not a consequence of perfection. Write and choose distinct .
Let be the set of all nodes of together with all nodes for tails satisfying , together with their initial segments; that is, replace the prefix by rather than concatenate the full old word. Prefixes shorter than already lie in . Then is a tree containing , its recorded initial tree through height is , it is perfect because the nodes of keep their splitting extensions and each inherits the splitting of the perfect tree below , and it is nowhere dense because its body is the union of the nowhere-dense set with the finitely many homeomorphic images of the closed nowhere-dense sets . Hence is a direct extension of .
For every there is exactly one with and . Let be the full level- permutation swapping with (the identity if they agree) and leaving all other level words and all subsequent tail bits unchanged. Since [F2] fixes an enumeration of every finite-prefix rearrangement, define to be the least with . Then , because the graft is recorded in the witness tree and every witness tree of a condition in the generic filter is contained in the generic tree. Hence , and the condition forces a finite subunion of the countable meagre envelope of the absorption lemma.
Singleton case displayed level by level: for , choose , a node , and let . Its body contains , has arbitrarily late free odd coordinates and is nowhere dense because a later even coordinate can be set to ; graft below , so . At every level the graft contributes the nodes with (some may already belong to ). The body remains nowhere dense by the finite-union argument of step 1.2; no same-level sibling of is required. The full prefix permutation swapping and sends the grafted branch to , so , and this single finite substitution is the whole code at this stage.
The general existence assertion is the exact content of [F2]. Under the additional matched-width hypothesis, steps 1.1--1.3 exhibit the finite graft explicitly, and step 2.1 supplies the unconditional singleton instance. No claim is made that perfection alone yields the width comparison or that the generic tree itself contains every old tree.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
11 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
- Saharon Shelah, Can You Take Solovay's Inaccessible Away? (standard reference, not scraped)