Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-13
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.

Grothendieck needs only left exactness

Statement

Additive left exactness of F and G alone guarantees a strongly convergent spectral sequence RpG(RqF(A))⟹Rp+q(GF)(A).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: We refute the assertion over abelian groups; assume AC for the injective models below.

[F1]

The Grothendieck theorem requires injective-image acyclicity; that hypothesis identifies the total target with the derived composite (Grothendieck spectral sequence, The total Cartan-Eilenberg complex computes the derived composite).

[F2]

Supplied projective and injective Ext computations agree (Projective and injective constructions of Ext agree for supplied resolutions).

[F3]

Under AC, divisible abelian groups are injective (Over a PID, injective modules are exactly divisible modules).

Refutation

1.1F3construct

Set F=G=Hom⁡Z(Z/2,−) and A=Z. Both functors are additive and left exact, since maps into a kernel are precisely maps killed by the next arrow. Evaluation at 1 identifies F(B) with B[2], so GF(B)=(B[2])[2]=B[2]=F(B) naturally. The complexes 0→Z→Q→Q/Z→0 and 0→Z/2→Q/Z→2Q/Z→0 are injective resolutions by F3: rational division proves divisibility, and the displayed kernels and images prove exactness.

2.1F2step 1.1

The rank-one free resolution 0→Z→2Z→Z/2→0 computes Ext⁡j(Z/2,B) as the cohomology of B→2B, by F2. Hence RqF(Z) is Z/2 at q=1 and zero elsewhere, while RpG(Z/2) is Z/2 at p=0,1 and zero elsewhere. The proposed E2 therefore has precisely two nonzero entries, at (0,1) and (1,1). Every dr for r≥2 has zero source or target, so both survive. In total degree two the finite filtration would force R2(GF)(Z)≅Z/2. But GF=F and the same length-one calculation gives R2F(Z)=0, a contradiction.

3.1F1F2F3step 1.1step 2.1∎

The missing hypothesis really fails: I=Q/Z is injective, F(I)=I[2]≅Z/2, and R1G(F(I))≅Z/2≠0. This is exactly the acyclicity used in F1's target comparison. Thus the counterexample retains explicit resolution existence and isolates the failure of injective-image acyclicity. AC was used only to license divisibility as injectivity; the displayed finite Ext calculations and failure of the conclusion are algebraic.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

26 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