Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-12
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.

Directed progressive products have club continuous chains

Statement

Assume AC. Let A be a set of infinite regular cardinals, I a proper ideal on A, and λ an infinite regular cardinal such that ∏A/I is λ-directed: every family of fewer than λ elements has a weak upper bound. For any prescribed (gξ)ξ<λ in ∏A there is a strictly <I increasing (fξ)ξ<λ in ∏A such that gξ(a)<fξ+1(a) for every a∈A and ξ<λ.

For every uncountable regular κ satisfying κ++<λ and {a∈A:a≤κ++}∈I, this same chain has (∗)κ. If A is infinite and ∣A∣<κ, it has the corresponding κ bounding-projection property. More generally, whenever its ∣A∣+ projection property holds and λ>∣A∣+, it has a unique exact upper bound modulo I, with the coordinate-cofinality bounds of the exact-bound lemma for each additional eligible κ≥∣A∣+. These latter conclusions apply, in particular, whenever an eligible κ≥∣A∣+ exists.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The product, proper ideal, regular λ, directedness and prescribed family in the statement. Coordinate values in ∏A are strictly below their indexing cardinal.

[F1]

Reduced-product comparisons compose, including mixed weak/strict comparisons, and coordinate cofinal enumerations preserve true cofinality (Progressive products and true cofinality transfers).

[F2]

Club continuity at cofinality κ++<λ gives (∗)κ for an arbitrary proper ideal on an infinite set (Club continuity produces strongly increasing subsequences).

[F3]

For infinite A and regular ∣A∣<κ≤λ, (∗)κ implies the κ bounding-projection property (Strongly increasing subsequences force a bounding projection).

[F4]

For infinite A, regular λ>∣A∣+ and the ∣A∣+ projection property give a unique exact bound; additional regular κ≥∣A∣+ projection properties give {a:cf⁡(h(a))<κ}∈I (Bounding projections produce an exact upper bound with large coordinate cofinalities).

[F6]

A specified transfinite rule recurses on a well-order (Transfinite recursion).

[A1]

AC fixes choices from nonempty witness sets (The Axiom of Choice).

Proof

1.1F1F5F6A1

Properness implies A≠∅, and the product is nonempty because it contains the zero function. Every a∈A is a limit ordinal, so v(a)+1<a for v∈∏A. If v weakly bounds a family, v+1 strictly bounds it, by the coordinate inequality and F1. AC fixes a choice function on the nonempty subsets of the set ∏A, hence specifies one bound whenever directedness supplies a nonempty bound set. For every nonzero limit δ<λ also fix a club Eδ⊆δ of order type cf⁡(δ): continuously enumerate a cofinal subset from F5, keeping successor values increasing and taking suprema at limits, as authorized by F6. Intermediate suprema stay below δ by F5; its continuous range is the required club. AC selects the initial cofinal enumerations simultaneously.

2.1

Define f by recursion. Set f0=0. At every 0<δ<λ, the earlier family has size at most ∣δ∣<λ; directedness and step 1.1 provide a specified weak bound bδ∈∏A. At a successor δ=ξ+1 set fδ(a)=max⁡{bδ(a),fξ(a),gξ(a)}+1. At a limit whose cofinality is κ++ for an eligible uncountable regular κ, set

vδ(a)={sup⁡ξ∈Eδfξ(a)a>κ++,0a≤κ++,fδ(a)=max⁡{bδ(a),vδ(a)}+1.

At other nonzero limits put fδ=bδ+1. The special rule is unambiguous because distinct cardinals have distinct double successors. For its large coordinates ∣Eδ∣=κ++<a=cf⁡(a), so F5 gives vδ(a)<a. The other coordinates have value zero. Thus each rule gives a member of ∏A, and the choices in step 1.1 make it a specified F6 recursion. [step 1.1, F5, F6]

3.1step 1.1step 2.1F1F2F5F6

For every ξ<δ<λ, fξ≤Ibδ<Ifδ; hence F1 gives fξ<Ifδ. At successors the explicit maximum gives gξ(a)<fξ+1(a) at every coordinate, not just modulo I. Fix any eligible κ. At every δ<λ of cofinality κ++ the special rule was used, and sup⁡ξ∈Eδfξ(a)=vδ(a)<fδ(a) for all a>κ++. The possible failures lie in the assumed I-small set of remaining coordinates. This proves precisely the club-continuity premise, with the bound index equal to δ. If A is infinite, F2 gives (∗)κ. If A is finite, let S be the union of all sets in I; this finite union belongs to I, and S≠A. Every strict comparison holds at every a∉S. Thus the entire chain is strongly increasing with the constant witness S, and every unbounded subset of regular λ has an order-type-κ subset by choosing successive least larger indices, using F5–F6 at limits. Hence (∗)κ also holds in the finite case.

4.1step 3.1F3F4F7

Suppose A is infinite and put τ=∣A∣. For each eligible κ>τ, step 3.1 and F3 give the κ projection property. If the τ+ projection property holds and λ>τ+, F4 gives the stated exact bound and all its coordinate-cofinality conclusions. In particular, if an eligible κ≥τ+ exists, restrict each strong order-type-κ subsequence supplied in step 3.1 to its first τ+ terms. This proves (∗)τ+; τ+ is regular by F7, so F3 gives its projection property. Also τ+≤κ<κ++<λ. Thus every hypothesis of F4 holds. The strict chain and prescribed domination were already proved in step 3.1, with no eligible κ needed for that construction. QED.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

47 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