Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

Associativity of Brauer and partition diagram composition

Statement

For every commutative unital ring R, every δ∈R, and every composable triple of Brauer diagrams or of partition diagrams, the composition defined in Typed Brauer and partition diagram categories is associative and has the stated identity diagrams as units.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The diagram modules and composition convention of Typed Brauer and partition diagram categories, together with three composable basis diagrams.

[F1]

Typed Brauer and partition diagram categories: composition glues matching middle vertices, takes the generated equivalence relation, retains its outer classes, and multiplies by δ once per class removed from the middle.

Proof

1.1givenF1construct

Regard the three diagrams as disjoint finite graphs (for Brauer) or disjoint finite vertex sets carrying partitions (for partition diagrams). Glue both middle interfaces at once, and let ∼ be the least equivalence relation generated by all diagram edges or blocks and both sets of interface identifications. The relation ∼ is independent of the order in which the two interfaces are glued, since the least equivalence relation generated by a fixed set of pairs is unique. Thus both bracketings retain exactly the same equivalence classes meeting the outer boundary.

2.1F1step 1.1

The classes meeting no outer vertex are also the same for both bracketings. Any class removed when the first two diagrams are composed meets neither of their exposed boundaries, so it contains no vertex of the third diagram; it can never merge with another class in the second composition. Conversely, every final class meeting no outer vertex is either removed at the first composition or is removed at the second. Hence the sum of the two loop counts in either bracketing equals the number of classes of ∼ meeting no outer vertex.

3.1F1step 2.1algebra∎

By [F1], each bracketing therefore has the same outer diagram and coefficient δℓ, with the same integer ℓ. The two bracketings agree on basis diagrams, so bilinearity gives associativity on the free modules. The identity diagrams add no new equivalence identifications and remove no class; they act as left and right units.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · one level

1 result within one dependency step 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