Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-13
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.

The total Cartan-Eilenberg complex computes the derived composite

Statement

Let F:AB and G:BC be additive left-exact functors, with enough injectives in A,B, and suppose F sends injectives to G-acyclic objects. Supply an injective resolution datum I at A, write I=I(A)del, and supply a Cartan–Eilenberg resolution F(I)J. Then the augmentation GF(I)Tot(GJ) is a quasi-isomorphism, and consequently Hn(Tot(GJ))=RIn(GF)(A) via this canonical comparison. One may suppress the subscript and obtain resolution-independent naturality only under DC or with supplied change-of-resolution comparison maps and homotopies. All relative acyclicity assertions use the displayed supplied columns or their supplied comparison identifications.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The functors, acyclicity condition and supplied resolutions in the statement.

[F1]

F(I) is termwise G-acyclic and its cohomology computes the right derived objects of F relative to the displayed supplied resolution (Applying F gives a termwise G-acyclic complex).

[F2]

The first hypercohomology sequence computes the hyperderived total target from termwise derived objects (First hypercohomology spectral sequence).

[F3]

Its bottom edge is induced by the augmentation of the original functor-applied complex (Hypercohomology edge maps are canonical).

[F4]

RIn(GF)(A) is defined as Hn(GF(I)) for the named supplied injective datum I at A (Right derived objects relative to supplied injective resolution data).

Proof

1.1

Apply F2 to G and the complex F(I). Its first page is E1q,p=RpG(F(Iq)). F1 makes this zero for p>0; for p=0 left exactness identifies it with GF(Iq) and the d1 is its cochain differential. Thus the second page has only the row p=0, equal to Hq(GF(I)).

F1F2
2.1

Every differential from page two onward has zero source or target off that row, so the page is stationary. In target degree n its finite filtration has only one potentially nonzero quotient, at (n,0); all earlier successive quotients vanish and the last filtration term is zero. Therefore its bottom edge Hn(GF(I))Hn(Tot(GJ)) is an isomorphism. F3 identifies this exact edge with the augmentation map, proving that augmentation is a quasi-isomorphism.

F2F3step 1.1
3.1

F4 identifies the source cohomology with RIn(GF)(A), and nowhere is F(I) treated as a resolution of F(A). Under DC, or when the relevant change-of-resolution comparisons and homotopies are supplied, this relative identification is independent of I and natural, so the subscript may then be suppressed. At n=0 it agrees with the left-exact augmentation kernel identification, and zero terms or zero complexes satisfy the same one-row argument.

F2F4step 2.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

23 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