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.
Blass's paired finite-modification classes form a Russell set
Statement
In Blass's parameter-HOD model , the canonically enumerated family
is a pairwise disjoint family of two-element sets with no choice function on any infinite subfamily. Consequently is a Russell set.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The forcing extension, parameters, function , family , and class from Blass's finite-modification classes and parameter-HOD model.
Blass's finite-modification classes and parameter-HOD model makes every object in hereditarily definable from , finitely many reals in , and ordinal parameters.
The tail-complement automorphism fixes finitely supported names gives the finite-condition calculation for flipping the unused tail of one Cohen coordinate. The same calculation applies after renaming its distinguished coordinate to .
Symmetry lemma for forcing automorphisms transports a forced formula and all its parameter names under such an automorphism.
Truth lemma supplies a condition in the actual generic filter forcing each true fixed formula with the displayed name parameters.
Proof
For distinct and either choices of complement, the corresponding Cohen reals have infinite symmetric difference. Indeed, beyond any prescribed finite set of bits, every condition has an extension assigning one fresh bit at coordinates and so that the two chosen versions disagree. Genericity meets each of these dense sets. Also . Thus the finite-modification classes in different displayed positions are distinct; equivalence classes are either equal or disjoint. Each therefore has exactly two elements and the family is pairwise disjoint.
Suppose for contradiction that is a choice function on for an infinite in . By F1, is uniquely defined in from , ordinals, and finitely many real parameters from . For each , fix one ground finite set , one coordinate , and one sign such that is or . Since is infinite and is finite, the least element of their difference exists without Choice.
The value is one of the two classes in ; interchange the labels if necessary and suppose it is . By F4, some finite forces both the unique defining formula for and this value assertion. Choose above every with , taking if there is none. Flip precisely the bits for . By F2 the induced automorphism fixes , every ordinal, and each named , while it interchanges and . It fixes because it merely swaps the two members of and fixes every other value.
Apply F3 to the formula forced by . Since the condition and every defining parameter are fixed, the same forces that the same uniquely defined function takes to . As , both value statements hold in . Step 1.1 says the two values are distinct, contradicting that is a function. The case in which the original value is is identical because the flip is an involution.
Hence no infinite subfamily of has a choice function. The function already belongs to , so is countably indexed there; step 1.1 supplies disjoint two-element pieces. By the source definition, is therefore a Russell set. No family of representatives of the finite-modification classes was selected in .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
15 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.