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 snake lemma is just a pair of short exact kernel and cokernel rows

Statement

The snake lemma says nothing beyond the separate kernel-row and cokernel-row statements for a morphism of short exact sequences.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A morphism of short exact sequences.

[L1]

The kernel and cokernel rows are only partially exact on their own (The kernel row and cokernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences are exact at two nodes each).

[L2]

The kernel row need not be short exact (The kernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences need not be short exact).

[L3]

The snake lemma adds the connecting morphism and the missing middle exactness (Snake lemma in an abelian category).

Refutation

1.1

The theorem [L1] only gives two-node exactness for the kernel row and two-node exactness for the cokernel row, and [L2] shows that nothing stronger is automatic.

L1L2
2.1

By contrast, [L3] produces the connecting morphism and the exactness through it. So the snake lemma contains strictly more information than the separate kernel-row and cokernel-row statements.

L3step 1.1∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

13 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