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.
Symmetry lemma for forcing automorphisms
Statement
For every forcing automorphism and formula , the ordinary forcing relation satisfies iff for every tuple of -names. In a symmetric system with automorphism group , if and the parameter names are hereditarily symmetric, then are hereditarily symmetric and the same ordinary-forcing equivalence applies to these tuples. No separate forcing relation with existential quantifiers restricted to HS names is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A forcing automorphism for the ordinary relation; for the assertion about HS parameter tuples, a symmetric system, , and HS names .
Automorphisms acting on forcing names defines the action of an arbitrary forcing automorphism on all -names, its inverse action, and preservation of name rank, order and compatibility.
Atomic forcing relation defines the atomic forcing clauses with the library's name-first pair convention.
Forcing relation for all formulas defines the recursive clauses for compound formulas.
Symmetric forcing systems, supports, and hereditarily symmetric names gives when in the stated symmetric system.
Proof
Simultaneously induct on the ranks of . In the atomic membership and equality clauses, iff , compatible extensions correspond under , and subnames correspond rank-preservingly. Therefore iff , and likewise for equality.
Induct on formula complexity. Boolean clauses commute with the bijection of conditions. For an existential, F1 maps the class of all -names bijectively to itself, so witnesses correspond; applying the inverse automorphism from F1 gives the reverse implication. This is a syntactic induction on the stated forcing clauses; no semantic-generic existence hypothesis is used.
Now assume and . F4 makes an HS tuple. Apply the already-proved ordinary forcing equivalence of step 2.1 to these parameter tuples; its existential name quantifier still ranges over all -names, exactly as F3 specifies. This proves the asserted parameter-preserving specialization and makes no claim about an unintroduced HS-restricted forcing relation.
Depends on
Used by
- A coordinate swap defeats an atom-free sock choice Example
- Fixed finite-fragment verification for the basic Cohen symmetric model Lemma
- The Cohen reals form a symmetric set but their enumeration is not symmetric Lemma
- An atom-free symmetric model has countable pairs without choice Theorem
- Hereditarily symmetric interpretations form a transitive ZF model Theorem
- The basic Cohen set has no countably infinite subset Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
13 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 & Symmetric Extensions, Lemma 10.8 (Symmetry Lemma) (standard reference, not scraped)