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.
FALSE: consistent first-order ZF has a unique model up to isomorphism
Statement
False conditional claim: If the coded first-order theory is syntactically consistent, it has a unique set model up to isomorphism.
The refutation is conditional in ZFC: assuming that consistency antecedent, there are nonisomorphic models of cardinalities and . No assertion of is made.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: ZFC and the explicit antecedent that is syntactically consistent.
is a set of sentences in the explicitly countable membership signature. (The set of first-order ZF axiom sentences)
Every nonempty set model of this coded theory has infinite external carrier, without assuming transitivity or external well-foundedness. (Every set model of first-order ZF has infinitely many elements)
A consistent theory in an explicitly countable signature has an at most countable nonempty model. (Completeness for explicitly countable set languages)
In ZFC an infinite structure has an elementary extension of any cardinal at least its size and language size. (Upward Löwenheim–Skolem, including elementary extensions)
AC is assumed for the upward cardinal-size result. (The Axiom of Choice)
Refutation
Under the stated consistency antecedent, F1 and F3 supply with carrier injecting into . F2 makes this carrier infinite. An infinite subset of can be enumerated in increasing order: after finitely many entries it has a least unused member, and each member is eventually reached since only finitely many natural numbers precede it. Composing this enumeration with the injection's inverse on its range gives a bijection . Thus .
Under A1 apply F4 with : is infinite, its size is , and the membership signature is finite. It gives of size , which satisfies every sentence of by elementarity. An isomorphism would be a bijection, contradicting . These are the promised two witnesses under the antecedent. Neither the use of F2 nor the extension argument identifies either internal membership relation with external membership or asserts well-foundedness.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
32 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
- Moschovakis, Theorem 1J.3 and discussion pp44–45, Remark 1J.6 p46; Weiss–D’Mello Exercise 15 p25 with locally proved upward theorem. (standard reference, not scraped)