Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)
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.

Countable tower completion obstruction exact sequence

Statement

Assume AC. If G0G1 are subgroups of an abelian group A, there is a natural exact sequence 0mGmAηlimmA/Gmlimm1Gm0. Here η(a)=(a+Gm)m, and lim1 has the countable Delta-cokernel meaning. Consequently, for a separated filtration with Gm=FmA, completeness is equivalent to limm1Gm=0. Naturality means homomorphisms f:AA with f(Gm)Gm at every index.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Lim one obstruction to completeness defines the compatible-tuple limit and lim1Gm=(mGm)/Δ(mGm), with Δ(g)m=gmgm+1 for these inclusion transitions.

[F2]

The Axiom of Choice supplies a representative in each member of a countable family of nonempty cosets. This is the sole use of AC below.

Proof

Given: A and the descending subgroup tower. Put L=limmA/Gm and Q=limm1Gm.

1.1

For c=(cm)L, select amcm for every m using [F2]. Compatibility says amam+1Gm. Thus b=(amam+1)mmGm, and set (c)=[b]Q. Another representative sequence has the form am=am+gm, with gmGm, and gives b=b+Δ(g). The class is therefore independent of every representative choice. Using the sequence am+am for the sum of two compatible families shows (c+c)=(c)+(c). Hence is a uniquely defined homomorphism, with no fixed section of any quotient included in its data.

F1F2
1.2

The inclusion of mGm in A is injective. The tuple η(a) is compatible, and η(a)=0 exactly when aGm for every m. This proves exactness at the first two nonzero terms.

F1
2.1

If c=η(a), use the constant representative sequence am=a, whose difference is zero; thus (c)=0. Conversely, if (c)=0, a representative sequence from step 1.1 has difference Δ(g) for some gmGm. The elements amgm then satisfy amgm=am+1gm+1 for every m, so all equal a0g0. Their cosets are cm, giving c=η(a0g0). This proves exactness at L in both directions.

F1step 1.1
2.2

For any class [b]Q, take one tuple b=(bm)mGm representing it. Define a0=0 and am=j<mbj for m>0. Then amam+1=bmGm, so (am+Gm)m is compatible and maps to [b]. These finite sums require no choice, and a single existential representative of one quotient class requires no choice axiom. Thus is surjective, proving the terminal exactness.

F1step 1.1
3.1

If f:AA preserves every subgroup, it sends a compatible tuple of cosets to a compatible tuple, and sends a representative sequence am to f(am). Its differences are f(amam+1). The product map also commutes with Δ, so it induces the map on Q; the displayed sequence consequently commutes with f at every term. If mGm=0, step 1.2 makes η injective, while steps 2.1–2.2 identify its cokernel with Q. Thus η is an isomorphism exactly when Q=0. For Gm=FmA, the nonpositive indices are cofinal toward minus infinity: all other quotient components are uniquely determined by quotienting the component at zero. This limit is precisely the completion limit.

F1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 2.2
4.1

The zero group gives a zero sequence. If all Gm=0, then L=A and Q=0. If all Gm=A, then L=0, the intersection is A, and step 2.2 shows Δ is onto, so again Q=0. These constant cases show why the separatedness hypothesis is needed for the final equivalence with an isomorphism. No strict inclusions, finite generation or completeness of A were assumed. The only countable selection was of the coset representatives in step 1.1.

F1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.2

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

4 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