Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 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.

FALSE: extension classes automatically form a set

Statement

FALSE: for fixed objects in an arbitrary abelian category, merely defining equivalence of extensions proves that the extension classes form a set.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An arbitrary abelian category and fixed objects M,N, with no local-smallness, essential-smallness, or enough-resolution hypothesis imposed.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

The axioms stated here do not bound the possible middle objects E by a set. Thus the definition initially supplies only a class of extensions and an equivalence relation on it. Taking a quotient of a class by an equivalence relation does not, by itself, prove that the quotient is a set.

givenalgebra
2.1

The cited corollary obtains a set only after a resolution-based classification identifies the classes with a set-sized Ext⁡1(M,N). That extra smallness discharge is not a consequence of the equivalence-relation definition alone, which refutes the claim as now stated.

step 1.1algebra∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

5 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