Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-12
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.

Tail suprema land in the scale subspace

Statement

Assume AC. Let 1≤m≤k<ω and let (hξ)ξ<ℵm be points of the scale subspace X such that hξ(n)<hη(n) for every ξ<η<ℵm and n∈B with n>k. Put g(n)=sup⁡ξ<ℵmhξ(n) on B. There is h∈X with h(n)=g(n) at every n>k in B, hence h=∗g. On that tail g(n)<ℵn and cf⁡(g(n))=ℵm. No condition on the cofinalities of the finitely many initial values of g is needed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The normalized scale (fα)α<λ defining X, with λ=ℵω+1, and the sequence in the statement.

[F1]

Points of X are Rudin points eventually equal to scale terms; the scale is strictly increasing in <∗, and admissible finite modifications preserve X (Kojman-Shelah scale subspace).

[F2]

For strictly increasing scale indices indexed by ℵm and pointwise strictly increasing representatives in the actual product on n>k≥m, their tail supremum is below each factor, has coordinate cofinality ℵm, and is eventually equal to fδ for the index supremum δ<λ of cofinality ℵm (Tail suprema and normalized scales).

[A1]

AC is assumed for the scale and cardinal-regularity suppliers (The Axiom of Choice).

Proof

1.1F1

Each hξ has exactly one scale index αξ with hξ=∗fαξ. Existence is F1. If two distinct indices worked, put the smaller first; scale strictness outside a finite set would give hξ(n)<hξ(n) at all but finitely many coordinates. The infinite B has a coordinate outside their finite union, a contradiction. For ξ<η, the supplied strict inequality on the cofinite tail excludes αη≤αξ: equality would imply eventual equality of the two points, while a strict reverse index inequality would imply hη<∗hξ. Either conflicts with the strict tail inequalities outside finitely many coordinates. Thus (αξ) is strictly increasing.

2.1step 1.1F2F3F4A1

Set T={n∈B:n>k}. For every ξ<ℵm there is a successor ξ+1<ℵm, since the infinite cardinal ℵm is a limit ordinal (also its cofinality exceeds one by F3–F4). For n∈T, hξ(n)<hξ+1(n)≤ℵn, so hξ(n)<ℵn. Hence the restrictions hξ↾T are members of the actual strict product, not just the inclusive-top product. They are pointwise increasing by hypothesis and eventually equal to fαξ↾T by step 1.1. Thus all hypotheses of F2, including 1≤m≤k, hold. F2 and A1 give δ=sup⁡ξαξ<λ, cf⁡(δ)=ℵm, and g↾T=∗fδ↾T with g(n)<ℵn and cf⁡(g(n))=ℵm on T.

3.1step 2.1F1F3

Define h(n)=ℵn for n∈B with n≤k, and h(n)=g(n) for n>k. On the finite prefix, F3 gives uncountable cofinalities ℵn≤ℵk; on the tail, step 2.1 gives cofinality ℵm≤ℵk. Thus every coordinate cofinality lies strictly between ω and ℵk+1, and h∈XR(B). Step 2.1 and the finite prefix imply h=∗fδ, so F1 gives h∈X. It agrees with g on every required tail coordinate and differs, if at all, only on the finite prefix. QED.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

33 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