Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10
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.

Taboo games reduce to pruned residual games

Statement

In ZFC, either the root of a taboo tree T belongs to WI∪WII, or

S={p∈T:(∀q⊆p) q∉WI∪WII}

is a nonempty pruned subtree. In the latter case every winning strategy for G(A∩[S];S) extends to a winning strategy for G(A;T), for any A⊆[T]. Restriction to [S] preserves every positive Borel level. Consequently determinacy at each such level for pruned set trees is equivalent to determinacy at that level for set trees with taboos.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

The reachability sets are disjoint and satisfy the some-child/every-child equivalences of Terminal reachability and residual positions.

[F2]

The maximal-play and subspace payoff conventions are Game trees with terminal taboos.

[A1]

Assume The Axiom of Choice, including the fixed winning reachability strategies from F1.

Proof

Given: A nonempty taboo tree T and A⊆[T].

1.1F1F2

A root in WP has a strategy reaching an opponent taboo, which wins for P independently of A. Otherwise the root belongs to S, and the all-prefix definition makes S prefix closed. A node of S cannot be terminal in T, since each terminal is winning for the player opposite its label.

2.1F1step 1.1

At p∈S, suppose P is to move and Q is the other player. No child is in WP, since the some-child implication would put p in WP. Some child is outside WQ, since otherwise the every-child implication would put p in WQ. This child avoids both sets, and all its earlier prefixes are prefixes of p; hence it belongs to S. Thus S is pruned.

3.1F1A1step 2.1

Let σ win for P on S. Follow it as long as play stays in S. If the opponent Q first exits at child q of p∈S, then q∉WQ by the some-child clause at the Q-position p. Since this is the first exit, the only failing prefix is q itself, so q∈WP. Switch to the fixed P reachability strategy at q. A1 provides default legal moves after any first inconsistent own move, making the strategy total without affecting consistent plays.

4.1F2step 1.1step 3.1

A consistent play that exits therefore terminates at an opponent taboo. A consistent play that never exits cannot terminate by step 1.1, so is a branch of S; its payoff membership is unchanged by replacing A with A∩[S], and σ wins it. This proves the strategy transfer for either player.

5.1F2step 4.1algebra

A cylinder of [T] restricts to the corresponding cylinder of [S], so opens restrict to opens. Moreover ([T]∖B)∩[S]=[S]∖(B∩[S]) and (⋃nBn)∩[S]=⋃n(Bn∩[S]). Induction over any positive-rank complement/union expression therefore preserves its Borel level, at limits as well as successors. Applying the hypothesized pruned-tree determinacy and step 4.1 proves the taboo direction; the reverse takes a pruned tree with both taboo sets empty. QED.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

7 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