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.
Null-to-meagre Tukey inequalities
Statement
In ZFC, and for the Lebesgue-null and meagre ideals on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The two ideals and the indicated ZFC background.
The special good-clopen meagre family is inclusion-cofinal, and there are Borel maps witnessing . (Meagre master codes are below summable slaloms)
There are Borel maps witnessing , where is an inclusion-cofinal null master family. (Null master codes and summable slaloms are Tukey equivalent, Null and meagre master codes are cofinal)
If for inclusion-cofinal ideal subfamilies, then and ; extending from cofinal families and selecting one code for each distinct coded set uses AC. (Ideal Tukey morphisms control additivity and cofinality, The Axiom of Choice)
The four null and meagre ideal invariants agree between Cantor space and the real line. (Transfer of null and meagre invariants between Cantor space and the line)
Proof
For each distinct , use [F3] to choose one special meagre code with ; for each distinct , choose one null master code with . Define maps on the actual cofinal set families by and . If , then , so [F2] gives ; [F1] then gives . Thus witness for the actual inclusion-cofinal ideal subfamilies in the direction required by [F3]. Duplicate codes cause no ambiguity because the representatives were fixed once by AC.
Apply [F3] on Cantor space, using the cofinality in [F1] and [F2]. It gives and . AC selects the code representatives in step 1.1 and the cofinal master covers in the extension step of [F3]; the underlying coded maps remain Borel and use fixed least-code choices. Transfer both values to by [F4]. ∎
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
25 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
- Tomek Bartoszyński, Invariants of Measure and Category, Theorem 3.12 and Lemmas 3.13–3.15, printed pp.8–11 (standard reference, not scraped)