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 define if every is compatible with , and define by and . Then is an equivalence relation, and iff gives a well-defined partial order on . It is separative: if , some is incompatible with . 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
Forcing preorders, compatibility and filters defines a nonempty forcing preorder and compatibility by a common stronger condition.
Equivalence relation, equivalence class, and the quotient set defines equivalence relations and their set quotients.
Proof
Given: A nonempty forcing preorder , with smaller conditions stronger.
If , every itself witnesses compatibility with ; hence . In particular is reflexive. If and , take using the first relation. Since , the second relation gives . Then , proving compatible with . As was arbitrary, , proving transitivity. Mutual is therefore reflexive, symmetric and transitive. By F2 its classes form a set. If , and , transitivity gives ; 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.
If have an original common extension , step 1.1 gives . Conversely, suppose . Since and , take . The relation applied to gives , so . 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.
If , negating the defining universal statement supplies incompatible with . Then by step 1.1 and is incompatible with by step 2.1. This proves separativity. If the original partial order is separative and , its separating extension witnesses ; 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 is nonempty. A singleton preorder gives a singleton quotient; no greatest or least condition was used. QED.
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
- Karagila, Forcing lecture notes (2023), Proposition 1.5, printed p. 3 (PDF p. 6) (standard reference, not scraped)