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 of , there is a finite fragment of ZFC such that ZFC proves the existence of a model of by the constructible-ground and finite-support -iteration argument. The fragment and its proof may depend on ; no PA-verified uniform refutation transformer is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: One finite list of target axioms and MA instances, fixed externally.
Finite-fragment interpretation in L with GCH supplies, for each fixed finite source support, an -relativized finite ZF proof of the required GCH instances.
Countable transitive models of fixed finite fragments supplies countable transitive models of each fixed finite ZFC source fragment by finite reflection.
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
Fix the actual ZFC axiom and MA instances in . 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.
Apply F1 to the fixed GCH part of that support. Add its finitely many -relativized certificates and the source instances required to construct the model. Enlarge the resulting finite to cover the forcing theorem and the finite target formulas. F2 gives a countable transitive source model of ; its constructible inner model has the particular source GCH instances, and the generic iteration over that model satisfies each member of by F3. These are ZFC-formalizable fixed-fragment steps, so ZFC proves the existence of the resulting set model of .
The argument chooses a finite proof separately for the actual . A semantic schedule for all MA instances does not by itself verify a numerical proof constructor or its PA checker invariant.
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
- Kunen, Set Theory, Martin's Axiom iteration (standard reference, not scraped)