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.
Fork detection transports to arbitrary boundary crosscuts
Statement
Assume AC. Let be a fork with compact absolute replacement , and let be any simple proper crosscut of with two distinct endpoints on . Choose the closing neighborhoods of disjoint from . Its triangle of unordered pairs defines an end-stable boundary-relative class , with any chosen lift. Then Here the pairing has an absolute first argument and an end-stable boundary-relative second argument. No pairing of two end-relative classes is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the LKB cover and Laurent ring , the fork, its compact absolute replacement, and the crosscut; the replacement is chosen using closing neighborhoods disjoint from the compact image of , which avoids all punctures.
A multiple of a fork surface has a closed compact replacement supplies , supported away from the outer boundary and using closing neighborhoods disjoint from , representing times the fork class, where .
The fork-noodle pairing is well defined and equivariant supplies the exact absolute/end-stable pairing, finite-chain naturality, and the identity . The Laurent ring is an integral domain.
The fork-noodle pairing detects essential intersections gives zero detection for the original fixed-boundary-endpoint noodle.
Proof
First choose the closing neighborhoods small enough to miss ; this is possible because its compact image misses . Choose enclosing , the filled tine, the chosen closed closing neighborhoods, and the projection of the compact support of ; all are compact in the interior of . Write the two source boundary angles in positive cyclic order and likewise the two target angles of ; choose the ordering of the target endpoints accordingly. There is an increasing piecewise linear lift with taking the two source angles to those targets. Interpolate . For a radial cutoff equal to zero on and one at , set . The angular maps are strictly increasing degree-one homeomorphisms; their inverses vary continuously by compactness. Thus is a filled-disk isotopy, identity on , carrying the source endpoint pair to the target pair. Its configuration-space isotopy lifts from the identity, commutes with every deck transformation by uniqueness of lifts, and fixes pointwise since every track on its support is constant.
The crosscut is an original noodle with endpoints . The closing neighborhoods are fixed by , hence also miss . Its triangle class exists by the same parameter-gap truncation as any noodle: truncate by , with the new edge in a collision neighborhood by uniform continuity. Transport this class by the lifted isotopy to obtain . An arbitrary choice of its lift differs by a deck monomial unit. The finite intersection naturality in [F2] and step 1.1 give for a Laurent monomial unit . Hence vanishing is equivalent to the last diagram polynomial vanishing, since . By [F3] this means that the tine can be isotoped off . Conjugate that isotopy by : it still fixes and fixes the outer boundary pointwise at every time, while fixes the tine. This is exactly disjoinability from . The inverse conjugation proves the reverse implication.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
19 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
- Bigelow, Braid groups are linear, JAMS 14 (2001) 471–486; local boundary transport derived here (standard reference, not scraped)