Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14
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.

Fixed finite-fragment verification for the MA iteration

Statement

For every externally fixed finite fragment Δ of ZFC+MA+¬CH, there is a finite fragment Γ of ZFC such that ZFC proves the existence of a model of Δ by the constructible-ground and finite-support ω2-iteration argument. The fragment and its proof may depend on Δ; no PA-verified uniform refutation transformer is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: One finite list Δ of target axioms and MA instances, fixed externally.

[F1]

Finite-fragment interpretation in L with GCH supplies, for each fixed finite source support, an L-relativized finite ZF proof of the required GCH instances.

[F2]

Countable transitive models of fixed finite fragments supplies countable transitive models of each fixed finite ZFC source fragment by finite reflection.

[F3]

The omega_2 iteration forces MA and continuum aleph_2 proves the ccc, bookkeeping, continuum and MA conclusions of the specified finite-support iteration over the required GCH ground.

Proof

1.1

Fix the actual ZFC axiom and MA instances in Δ. Expand the finite-support iteration proof F3 for those formulas. Its ccc induction, size and bounded-stage capture calculations, bookkeeping argument, and Cohen-coordinate argument use only finitely many ZFC schema instances and the GCH cardinal arithmetic needed at the relevant cardinals. Collect these in a finite source support. The iteration and its forcing relation are set definitions in that support; AC is used in the ccc, cardinal and bookkeeping choices.

F3
2.1

Apply F1 to the fixed GCH part of that support. Add its finitely many L-relativized certificates and the source instances required to construct the L model. Enlarge the resulting finite Γ to cover the forcing theorem and the finite target formulas. F2 gives a countable transitive source model of Γ; its constructible inner model has the particular source GCH instances, and the generic iteration over that model satisfies each member of Δ by F3. These are ZFC-formalizable fixed-fragment steps, so ZFC proves the existence of the resulting set model of Δ.

F1F2F3step 1.1
3.1

The argument chooses a finite proof separately for the actual Δ. A semantic schedule for all MA instances does not by itself verify a numerical proof constructor or its PA checker invariant.

step 2.1

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