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.

Separative quotient and compatibility

Statement

For a forcing preorder (P,) define pq if every rp is compatible with q, and define pq by pq and qp. Then is an equivalence relation, and [p][q] iff pq gives a well-defined partial order on P/. It is separative: if ab, some ca is incompatible with b. The quotient map preserves the original order and preserves and reflects compatibility. For a separative partial order, = and its quotient map is an order isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Forcing preorders, compatibility and filters defines a nonempty forcing preorder and compatibility by a common stronger condition.

[F2]

Equivalence relation, equivalence class, and the quotient set A/ defines equivalence relations and their set quotients.

Proof

Given: A nonempty forcing preorder P, with smaller conditions stronger.

1.1

If pq, every rp itself witnesses compatibility with q; hence pq. In particular is reflexive. If pqs and rp, take tr,q using the first relation. Since tq, the second relation gives ut,s. Then ur,s, proving r compatible with s. As r was arbitrary, ps, proving transitivity. Mutual is therefore reflexive, symmetric and transitive. By F2 its classes form a set. If pp, qq and pq, transitivity gives ppqq; the reverse replacement follows by reversing the equivalences. Thus the quotient order is well-defined. Reflexivity and transitivity descend, and mutual quotient inequalities give equal classes by the definition of , proving antisymmetry.

F1F2algebra
2.1

If p,q have an original common extension r, step 1.1 gives [r][p],[q]. Conversely, suppose [r][p],[q]. Since rr and rp, take sr,p. The relation rq applied to sr gives ts,q, so tp,q. Thus quotient compatibility is equivalent to original compatibility. In particular incompatibility is also preserved and reflected; no representatives of all classes were selected, only a representative of the one class under discussion.

F1step 1.1algebra
3.1

If [p][q], negating the defining universal statement supplies rp incompatible with q. Then [r][p] by step 1.1 and [r] is incompatible with [q] by step 2.1. This proves separativity. If the original partial order is separative and pq, its separating extension witnesses pq; combined with step 1.1 this gives =. Antisymmetry then makes each equivalence class a singleton, so the quotient map is an order isomorphism. The quotient is nonempty because P is nonempty. A singleton preorder gives a singleton quotient; no greatest or least condition was used. QED.

F1F2step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

9 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