Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-sol)audited 2026-09-27
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, add⁡(N)≤add⁡(M) and cof⁡(M)≤cof⁡(N) for the Lebesgue-null and meagre ideals on R.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two ideals and the indicated ZFC background.

[F1]

The special good-clopen meagre family is inclusion-cofinal, and there are Borel maps uM,vM witnessing M0⪯S. (Meagre master codes are below summable slaloms)

[F2]

There are Borel maps uN,vN witnessing S⪯N0, where N0 is an inclusion-cofinal null master family. (Null master codes and summable slaloms are Tukey equivalent, Null and meagre master codes are cofinal)

[F3]

If I0⪯J0 for inclusion-cofinal ideal subfamilies, then add⁡(J)≤add⁡(I) and cof⁡(I)≤cof⁡(J); 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)

[F4]

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

technique · composition of the coded morphisms
1.1

For each distinct A∈M0, use [F3] to choose one special meagre code fA with A=MfAgood; for each distinct B∈N0, choose one null master code gB with B=NgB. Define maps on the actual cofinal set families by U(A)=NuN(uM(fA)) and V(B)=MvM(vN(gB))good. If U(A)⊆B, then NuN(uM(fA))⊆NgB, so [F2] gives uM(fA)⊆∗vN(gB); [F1] then gives A=MfAgood⊆MvM(vN(gB))good=V(B). Thus U,V witness M0⪯N0 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.

F1F2F3
2.1

Apply [F3] on Cantor space, using the cofinality in [F1] and [F2]. It gives add⁡(N2ω)≤add⁡(M2ω) and cof⁡(M2ω)≤cof⁡(N2ω). 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 R by [F4]. ∎

step 1.1F3F4

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