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.
is a commutative ring: the product is a finite sum and both operations preserve support bounded below
Statement
Let be as in The formal Laurent series : support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient, and let , with chosen so that for all and for all . Then:
- (Finiteness.) For every the set is finite, so is a finite sum of reals; and whenever .
- (Closure.) , and lie in , with for and for .
- (Ring.) is a commutative ring with identity, and .
- (Monomials and constants.) for every and all ; consequently for all . Moreover for all and .
- (Least element.) Every nonempty that is bounded below has a least element. In particular has a least element whenever , so the valuation and the leading coefficient of The formal Laurent series : support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient are defined.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , its operations, , , the monomials and the constants as in The formal Laurent series : support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient; elements and bounds with for and for .
consists of the functions whose support is bounded below; and ; is the zero function, is at index and elsewhere, is at index and elsewhere, and is at index and elsewhere (The formal Laurent series : support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient).
is a totally ordered commutative ring: its order is total, and implies (The integers form a totally ordered ring, Order on the integers, Arithmetic on the integers).
Every nonempty subset of has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
The map is injective from onto the set of nonnegative integers and preserves addition and order, so every integer is for a unique natural (The naturals embed in the integers).
is a field: addition and multiplication are associative and commutative, multiplication distributes over addition, , and a finite sum of reals is independent of the order and bracketing of its terms (Field, The reals form a totally ordered field).
Proof
Let be nonempty with for all . Every element of is a nonnegative integer, so by [L4] for a nonempty ; by [L3] has a least element , and since preserves order and preserves order, is an element of that is every element of .
Fix and let . Then and , so and ; from and we get . Hence , and is determined by .
The integers with are in order-preserving bijection with the naturals satisfying by [L4], and there are finitely many of these, none at all when ; so is a finite set by [step 1.2], it is empty whenever , and therefore is a finite sum of reals which is whenever .
for every and for every , so and have support bounded below; and for every by [step 2.1], so does too. All three therefore lie in .
, since the two sums have the same finite index set and their terms agree by commutativity of multiplication in ; so multiplication on is commutative.
For and , expanding both and by [L1] and [L5] gives the sum of over the triples with and ; that set is finite because the argument of [step 1.2] bounds , and from below and hence, as in [step 2.1], from above as well. So multiplication on is associative.
, all three sums being finite; so multiplication distributes over addition.
For , has at most one nonzero term, the one with and , so ; taking gives , which is when and otherwise, that is, .
has at most one nonzero term, the one with and , so .
has at most one nonzero term, the one with and , so and ; moreover , so .
Addition on is defined index by index, and is closed under it and under negation by [step 3.1]; so associativity, commutativity, the law and the law each hold at every index by the corresponding law in , and is an abelian group.
By [step 4.1] addition makes an abelian group, by [step 3.2], [step 3.3] and [step 3.7] multiplication is commutative and associative with identity , and by [step 3.4] it distributes over addition; hence is a commutative ring with identity.
Clause 1 is [step 2.1], clause 2 is [step 3.1] with [step 2.1], clause 3 is [step 5.1], clause 4 is [step 3.5] and [step 3.6], and clause 5 is [step 1.1] applied to , which is nonempty when and bounded below because .
Depends on
Used by
- The unrestricted nested interval property fails in ℝ((t⁻¹)) Counterexample
- ℝ((t⁻¹)), the formal Laurent series field, is Cauchy complete, non-Archimedean, and lacks the least-upper-bound property Example
- Valuation and leading coefficient in ℝ((t⁻¹)): v(fg) = v(f) + v(g), and the behaviour of v under sums Lemma
- Every Cauchy sequence in ℝ((t⁻¹)) converges: K is sequentially Cauchy complete Theorem
- ℝ((t⁻¹)) is a field: every nonzero formal Laurent series is invertible Theorem
- ℝ((t⁻¹)) is an ordered field, ordered by the sign of the leading coefficient Theorem
Cited to discharge well-definedness by The formal Laurent series ℝ((t⁻¹)): support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 59 results over 26 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Formal power series (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hahn series (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- B. Sambale, An invitation to formal power series (standard reference, not scraped)
- H. G. Dales, Norming infinitesimals of large fields (standard reference, not scraped)