Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05 rests on unproved material (inherited)
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.

Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

The stalk of an inverse image sheaf is the stalk over the image point

Statement

Let f:XY be a continuous map, let G be a sheaf on Y, and let xX. Then there is a canonical isomorphism

(f1G)xGf(x).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A continuous map f:XY, a sheaf G on Y, and a point xX.

[F1]

The inverse image sheaf is the sheafification of the presheaf fpG (Inverse image presheaf and inverse image sheaf).

[F2]

A stalk is the colimit of sections over neighbourhoods of the point (The stalk of a presheaf at a point).

[L1]

Sheafification preserves stalks (Sheafification preserves stalks).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

By [F1] and [L1], it is enough to identify the stalk (fpG)x.

F1L1given
1.2

If tG(V) with f(x)V, then xf1(V) and t defines a class [V,t](fpG)(f1(V)). Sending the germ tf(x) to the germ of [V,t] at x gives a map Φ:Gf(x)(fpG)x. If two representatives agree on a smaller neighbourhood of f(x), then their induced sections agree on the inverse image of that smaller neighbourhood, so Φ is well defined.

F1F2construct
1.3

Conversely, represent a germ in (fpG)x by a section [V,t](fpG)(U) with xU and f(U)V. Since f(x)V, the section t has a germ tf(x)Gf(x). This depends only on the original germ at x, because equality of germs in (fpG)x means equality after restricting to some smaller neighbourhood of x, hence after restricting t and t to some common neighbourhood of f(x). Thus there is a map Ψ:(fpG)xGf(x).

F1F2construct
2.1

The maps Φ and Ψ are inverse on representatives, so (fpG)xGf(x). Step 1.1 then gives (f1G)xGf(x).

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3

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