Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passverified 2026-08-02 (claude-opus-5)
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.

Inclusion totally orders the Dedekind reals

Statement

Set inclusion totally orders the Dedekind reals (Order on the Dedekind reals): the relation AB:ABA \le B :\Leftrightarrow A \subseteq B on cuts (Dedekind cut) is reflexive, antisymmetric (with antisymmetry delivering set equality A=BA = B), and transitive, and it is moreover total: for any two cuts A,BA, B, either ABA \subseteq B or BAB \subseteq A.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Dedekind cuts A,BRA, B \in \mathbb{R}, ordered by inclusion (Order on the Dedekind reals).

[A1]

Set inclusion \subseteq is a partial order on any family of sets: reflexive (AAA \subseteq A), antisymmetric (mutual inclusion ABA \subseteq B, BAB \subseteq A gives A=BA = B), and transitive.

[A2]

The order on Q\mathbb{Q} is total (The rationals form a totally ordered field): for rationals x,yx, y exactly one of x<yx < y, x=yx = y, y<xy < x holds.

[L1]

Downward closure (C2): if pAp \in A and q<pq < p then qAq \in A, and likewise for BB (Dedekind cut).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The relation \le is set inclusion, and \subseteq is reflexive, antisymmetric (mutual inclusion ABA \subseteq B and BAB \subseteq A forces the set equality A=BA = B), and transitive; hence \le is a partial order on R\mathbb{R}.

A1
1.2

It remains to establish totality. Fix cuts A,BA, B; if ABA \subseteq B there is nothing to prove, so assume A⊈BA \not\subseteq B. It suffices to show BAB \subseteq A.

suffices: B ⊆ A when A ⊄ B
2.1

Since A⊈BA \not\subseteq B, choose a rational xx with xAx \in A and xBx \notin B.

step 1.2choose
3.1

Every yBy \in B satisfies y<xy < x: otherwise xyx \le y by trichotomy, and then downward closure of BB places xBx \in B (directly if x<yx < y, or as x=yBx = y \in B), contradicting xBx \notin B.

step 2.1L1A2
4.1

Fix any yBy \in B. From y<xy < x together with xAx \in A, downward closure of AA gives yAy \in A; as yBy \in B was arbitrary, BAB \subseteq A.

step 2.1step 3.1L1
5.1

Thus for all cuts A,BA, B, ABA \subseteq B or BAB \subseteq A, so \le is total; combined with the partial-order properties, set inclusion is a total order on R\mathbb{R}.

step 1.1step 1.2step 4.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 25 results over 13 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.

Sources