Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

The coefficient ideal commutes with smooth pullback

Statement

Assume AC (The Axiom of Choice).

Let φ ⁣:X′→X be a smooth morphism of smooth K-schemes and let (I,E,μ) be a marked ideal of maximal order with μ≥1 on X (The coefficient ideal of a marked ideal of maximal order). Then φ∗(C(I,μ))=C(φ∗I,μ).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Assume AC. Let φ ⁣:X′→X be a smooth morphism of smooth K-schemes and let (I,E,μ) be a marked ideal of maximal order with μ≥1 on X.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC is assumed through the smooth/étale supplier [F2] and the marked-sum supplier [F3].

[F1]

The coefficient ideal of a marked ideal of maximal order: C(I,μ)=∑i=0μ−1(Di(I),μ−i), the sum of marked ideals.

[F2]

Etale pullback commutes with derivative ideals, Order and simultaneous normal crossings are preserved by smooth morphisms: derivative ideals commute with étale pullback, Flat maps with geometrically regular fibres have standard smooth local presentations factors smooth germs locally as étale after a projection, and smooth pullback preserves orders; hence φ∗Di(I)=Di(φ∗I) for all i and φ∗(I,μ) is of maximal order with the same μ.

[F3]

Addition and multiplication of marked ideals: pullback of a sum of marked ideals is the sum of the pullbacks, since the operation is defined by ideal sums, products and orders, all of which are compatible with inverse image.

Proof

1.1A1F1F2

Termwise comparison. For a projection, derivatives in the base directions pull back, and derivatives in the new variables annihilate the pulled-back generators; Leibniz shows that derivatives of their variable-coefficient multiples give no additional generators. The étale comparison and local factorization in [F2] therefore give derivative-ideal equality for every smooth morphism. By [F2] the pullback of the i-th summand is φ∗(Di(I),μ−i)=(Di(φ∗I),μ−i), and these are exactly the summands of C(φ∗I,μ).

2.1A1F1F3step 1.1∎

Summing the summands. Pullback of a sum of marked ideals is the sum of the pullbacks by [F3], so summing the identity of step 1.1 over 0≤i≤μ−1 gives φ∗C(I,μ)=∑i(Di(φ∗I),μ−i)=C(φ∗I,μ), which is the assertion.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

65 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