Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: 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.

A Cartan-Eilenberg resolution totalizes to an injective replacement

Statement

Let I be a supplied Cartan–Eilenberg injective resolution of K, zero for p<b and q<0. Then T=TotI is bounded below and termwise injective, and its augmentation e:KT is a quasi-isomorphism. These assertions require no choice axiom. Under DC, or with the successive homotopy extensions required for maps from acyclic complexes supplied, T is K-injective and hence an injective replacement in D+.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The supplied bicomplex and augmentations in the statement.

[F1]

The four augmented complexes are exact, and total differential is h+(1)pv (Cartan-Eilenberg injective resolution of a bounded-below complex).

[F2]

Finite biproducts of injectives are injective (Finite biproducts of injective objects are injective).

[F3]

Short exact sequences of cochain complexes give long exact cohomology sequences (The long exact sequence in cohomology).

[F4]

Bounded-below complexes of injectives are K-injective with DC or supplied successive homotopy extensions (A bounded below complex of injectives is homotopically injective).

Proof

1.1

The possible summands of Tn have bpn, hence form a finite biproduct of injectives. For n<b this is zero. The augmentation takes Kp into Ip,0; vϵ=0 and hϵ=ϵdK give De=edK.

F1F2
2.1

Adjoin Kp in vertical degree 1. Set Ap,1=Kp and Ap,q=Ip,q for q0, with vertical augmentation ϵ. All columns of A are exact. The total object Un=TnKn+1 with the signed differential is isomorphic to Cone(e)n, whose differential is (t,k)(Dt+ek,dKk). Explicitly send the Kn+1 summand of Un to (1)n+1k in the cone; the T summand is unchanged. This verifies both signs, including negative b.

F1step 1.1
3.1

Let FmU be the subcomplex consisting of columns pm. The quotient U/FmU has only the columns b,,m1. Its finite descending column filtration has shifted exact columns as successive quotients, hence it is acyclic by repeated application of the long exact sequence. Fix n and take m>n+2. Then FmU is zero in degrees n1,n,n+1, since its least total degree is m1. Therefore Hn(U)=Hn(U/FmU)=0. This is a finite argument for each degree and requires neither exact filtered colimits nor any infinite limit.

F1F3step 2.1
4.1

The degreewise split sequence 0TCone(e)K[1]0 has connecting map Hn(K)Hn(T) induced by e: lift a cycle to the K summand and its cone differential is its image under e. The zero cone cohomology in step 3.1 and the long exact sequence thus make every Hn(e) invertible. Finally apply the bounded-below injective theorem with exactly its DC/supplied-extension hypothesis to obtain K-injectivity. The zero complex and one-column case obey the same construction.

F3F4step 1.1step 3.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

20 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