Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30‡ 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: the middle nine lemma holds without assuming the composite is zero

Statement

The middle-row form of the nine lemma remains true even if no hypothesis is made that the middle row is a complex.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The middle-row variant of the nine lemma.

[L1]

The middle-row conclusion is stated only after assuming the middle row is a complex (Nine lemma variants by which rows are assumed exact).

[L2]

That zero-composite hypothesis is load-bearing (Why the middle nine lemma needs a zero composite).

Refutation

1.1

By [L1], the theorem itself does not claim exactness of the middle row without first requiring that its composite vanish.

L1
2.1

By [L2], without that hypothesis the middle row need not even be a complex, so the purported strengthening is false.

L2step 1.1∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

10 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