Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-22
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.

Ladder separation from HYP

Statement

Let κ,(κn)n∈ω,E satisfy HYP and fix ladders (δi)i∈ω for δ∈E (Fleissner's HYP covering interface). Then for every β<κ+ there is a function mβ:E∩β→ω such that for all distinct δ,η∈E∩β, writing m:=max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(η)), one has δm≠ηm; and in fact δi≠ηifor every i≥max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(η)).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Witnesses κ,(κn),E for HYP and ladders (δi) for δ∈E; the induction is on β<κ+.

[F1]

For every limit β<κ+ there is a club C⊆β disjoint from E. If cf⁡(β)>ω, this is exactly HYP clause (3b). If cf⁡(β)=ω, fix a strictly increasing cofinal sequence (bn) in β and take C={0}∪{bn+1:n∈ω}. This set is unbounded; it has no limit point below β (every proper initial segment of an increasing ω-sequence is finite), hence is closed; and its nonzero members are successors, while every member of E has cofinality ω by clause (3a). These are all possible cofinalities of a nonzero limit ordinal in ZFC (Fleissner's HYP covering interface, Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality).

[F2]

Every element of E has cofinality ω, so successor ordinals are not in E. If C⊆β is club, 0∈C, and δ<β is not in C, then γ=sup⁡(C∩δ) belongs to C and is below δ, while min⁡(C∖δ) exists and is strictly between δ and β (Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality).

[L1]

Each ladder (δi) is increasing and cofinal in δ, so for every γ<δ there is a least i with δi>γ, and δi>γ for all larger i (Fleissner's HYP covering interface, The natural numbers N (von Neumann)).

[L2]

Induction: if a statement about mβ is proved for β=0, for β=α+1 from mα, and for limit β from all mγ with γ<β, then it holds for every β<κ+ (Cardinal (initial ordinal) and cardinality).

Proof

technique · induction
1.1givenL2

We build mβ for all β<κ+ by induction, maintaining the strengthened property that for distinct δ,η∈E∩β one has δi≠ηi for every i≥max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(η)).

2.1basestep 1.1

For β=0 take m0:=∅; the domain is empty and both properties are vacuous.

2.2step 1.1F2L1

Successor case. Let β=α+1. If α∉E put mβ:=mα; this keeps the domain and the strengthened property. If α∈E, define, for δ∈E∩α, mβ(δ):=max⁡(mα(δ),j(δ,α)) where j(δ,α) is the least i with αi>δ, and put mβ(α):=0.

2.3step 1.1F1F2L1

Limit case. Let β be a limit ordinal. By [F1] choose a club C⊆β disjoint from E and containing 0. For δ∈E∩β, [F2] gives γ(δ):=sup⁡(C∩δ)∈C with γ(δ)<δ and γˉ(δ):=min⁡(C∖δ)∈C with δ<γˉ(δ)<β. Thus mγˉ(δ) is defined by induction and contains δ in its domain. Define mβ(δ):=max⁡(mγˉ(δ)(δ),i(δ)), where i(δ) is the least i with δi>γ(δ).

3.1step 2.2F2L1

In the successor case, pairs inside E∩α keep the strengthened property because mβ≥mα pointwise, so their separating level is not decreased. For δ∈E∩α and the new point α: for i≥max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(α))=mβ(δ)≥j(δ,α) we have αi≥αj(δ,α)>δ>δi, so αi≠δi. Hence mβ works.

3.2step 2.3

In the limit case let δ<η in E∩β. If γ(δ)=γ(η) then also γˉ(δ)=γˉ(η)=:γˉ, and mβ≥mγˉ pointwise on {δ,η}, so the strengthened property for mγˉ, which is available by induction and holds at levels ≥max⁡(mγˉ(δ),mγˉ(η)), transfers to mβ.

3.3step 2.3F2L1

In the limit case, if γ(δ)<γ(η) then γˉ(δ)≤γ(η): otherwise γ(η)<γˉ(δ) would put both δ and η in the same gap of C, forcing γ(δ)=γ(η). Then for i≥max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(η))≥max⁡(i(δ),i(η)) we have δi<δ<γˉ(δ)≤γ(η)<ηi, so δi≠ηi.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1step 3.2step 3.3L2discharge-induction∎

Steps 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 establish the strengthened property for mβ in all three cases of the induction, so by [L2] the functions mβ exist for every β<κ+ with the strengthened property. Since δm≠ηm for the single level m=max⁡(mβ(δ),mβ(η)) is the special case i=m, the asserted functions exist.

Remarks

  • Where (3b) is needed. At limit stages of uncountable cofinality it supplies a club disjoint from E. At countable-cofinality stages such a club is automatic from clause (3a), by using a cofinal ω-sequence of successors. In either case the club gaps put each δ∈E below a smaller ordinal γˉ(δ) where the induction hypothesis separates ladders.

  • The strengthened form is not needed elsewhere, but it is what makes both the same-gap and the different-gap cases work at once; the paper's Lemma 1 is the special case of the single level m.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

32 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