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.
Two representatives in a filtered colimit of sets are equal exactly when they become equal at one common later stage
Statement
Let be a small filtered diagram. For and , their images in are equal if and only if there are arrows and such that .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The filtered diagram and the two elements in the statement.
Filteredness supplies common target objects and coequalizers of parallel arrows (Filtered categories and filtered colimits).
A Set-colimit is the tagged union modulo the equivalence relation generated by the diagram arrows (Set has all small colimits, realized as a quotient of a set-indexed disjoint union).
An equivalence relation is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive (Equivalence relation, equivalence class, and the quotient set ).
Proof
On tagged elements define when some satisfies . Identity arrows prove reflexivity, and exchanging proves symmetry.
For transitivity, suppose the first equality is witnessed in by , , and the second in by , . Choose and by [F1]. Then are parallel, so choose with . Applying shows , proving .
Thus is an equivalence relation. It contains every generating pair and by choosing , , and . Conversely, a witness gives a chain of two generating identifications from and to their equal tagged element in . Hence is exactly the equivalence relation in [L1].
By [L1], equality of the two colimit classes is equivalence under that relation. Step 2.1 identifies this with the existence of the displayed common stage, proving both directions of the biconditional.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 34 results over 14 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
- The Stacks Project, Categories, Lemma 4.19.2 (standard reference, not scraped)