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.
The mayer vietoris sequence is obtained by restricting forms without a partition of unity
Statement
Assume countable choice. Invalid proposed proof: restrictions alone establish full Mayer–Vietoris exactness, without a proof that the overlap difference map is surjective. In particular, extending an arbitrary overlap form unchanged to a prescribed cover member is not a valid general lift construction.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Assume countable choice. , , , and the smooth overlap function on .
Two open set de rham mayer vietoris cochain maps: For an open cover , put . The two-open-set de Rham maps are , , and , . The complexes are def-de-rham-cochain-complex. Restrictions are pullbacks along open inclusions, so prop-pullback-is-a-morphism-of-de-rham-complexes gives and . Both maps are real linear. The middle differential acts componentwise. Empty opens have zero form spaces. The order second minus first fixes the sign of every connecting map below.
The de rham mayer vietoris difference map is surjective: Assume countable choice. The difference map is surjective in every degree.
Refutation
If extended unchanged to a smooth function on , that extension would be continuous at . But for all integers , while , so no continuous extension exists. Thus the naive unchanged extension recipe fails for an explicit smooth overlap form.
The map requires a difference of two restricted forms, not either unchanged extension alone. The cutoff construction produces such a pair for this form (and every other form) under countable choice. Hence the actual sequence is exact, but the proposed recipe omits its essential lifting argument. This refutes that recipe, not the existence of other proofs of Mayer–Vietoris.
Source locator
Lee, proof of Theorem 17.20, p.463, where the cutoff lift is constructed explicitly.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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
- John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, second edition (standard reference, not scraped)