Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-03 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)
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 cut at an extremal element is closed under chain suprema

Statement

Let (P,≤) be a chain-complete poset, f:P→P progressive, M the smallest admissible set, and x∈M extremal (Extremal element and its cut (Bourbaki–Witt)). Then sup⁡C∈Mx for every chain C⊆Mx.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A chain-complete poset (P,≤), a progressive f:P→P, the smallest admissible set M, an extremal x∈M, and a chain C⊆Mx.

[A1]

Mx={z∈M:z≤x or f(x)≤z} (Extremal element and its cut (Bourbaki–Witt)).

[L1]

M is admissible, so it is closed under f and under suprema of its chains (A smallest admissible set exists).

[L2]

Every chain of P has a least upper bound in P (Chain-complete poset).

[L3]

A least upper bound of a set is itself an upper bound of that set and is below every other upper bound (Upper bound, least upper bound, and strict upper bound).

[L4]

≤ is a partial order, in particular transitive: u≤v and v≤w imply u≤w (Partial order and partially ordered set).

Proof

technique · cases
1.1

Write s=sup⁡C, which exists in P because C is a chain.

L2construct
1.2

Since C⊆Mx⊆M and M is closed under suprema of its chains, s∈M.

A1L1
1.3

Suppose every z∈C satisfies z≤x.

assume-case under
1.4

Suppose some z0∈C satisfies z0≰x.

assume-case over
2.1

In the first case x is an upper bound of C, so s≤x because s is the least upper bound, hence s∈Mx.

step 1.3step 1.1L3step 1.2A1
2.2

In the second case z0∈Mx together with z0≰x forces f(x)≤z0, and z0≤s since s is an upper bound of C, so f(x)≤s by transitivity, hence s∈Mx.

step 1.4A1step 1.1step 1.2L3L4
3.1

Either every element of C is below x or some element is not, so the two cases are exhaustive and sup⁡C∈Mx in both.

step 2.1step 2.2cases-exhaustive∎

Remarks

  • The empty chain is covered without a separate argument: it falls into the first case vacuously, and sup⁡∅=⊥≤x.
  • Note which property of the supremum each case uses. The first case uses leastness, that s is below any upper bound; the second uses only that s is an upper bound. Both halves of the definition of least upper bound are needed, which is why chain-completeness cannot be weakened here to the mere existence of some upper bound.
  • Together with The cut at an extremal element is closed under f this makes Mx admissible, which is what Everything in M is comparable to an extremal element feeds to minimality.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

7 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