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.
UCT and Kunneth collapse retains an extension problem
Statement
Two-column UCT or Künneth collapse determines the natural short exact sequence of its two filtration quotients; collapse alone supplies no canonical direct-sum decomposition. This assertion about a finite filtration is choice-free. Over a PID and under AC, the cited UCT sequence for a free chain complex and the cited Künneth sequence for two bounded-below free complexes admit splittings, but these need not be natural in the complexes.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The convergent sequences below when their hypotheses hold, and their finite two-column filtrations.
UCT has Ext second page and finite decreasing filtration (Universal coefficient spectral sequence).
The PID Künneth sequence is the two-column collapse and has noncanonical splittings under AC (PID Kunneth is a two-column collapse).
A collapsed spectral sequence need not split its abutment (Collapse does not in general split the abutment).
The PID UCT exact sequence uses evaluation and the cycle-boundary free-submodule argument under AC (The universal coefficient theorem for cohomology over a PID).
AC supplies set-indexed choices (The Axiom of Choice).
Proof
With only resolution columns zero and one, the decreasing UCT filtration is , giving . The increasing Künneth filtration instead gives . Collapse identifies these graded terms with the second page but selects no section of either quotient. These are kernel/quotient constructions requiring no choice.
The obstruction is concrete: has both graded pieces , but cannot split. A lift of the quotient generator is or modulo four, and neither is killed by two. F3 realizes precisely this ambiguity in a collapsed filtered complex. This is a general collapse example, not a claim that this nonsplit extension is realized by free-PID UCT.
In the separate PID UCT setting of F4, AC makes projective and permits a section of , hence a retraction . For , the cochain is a cocycle: on , is the identity and kills it. Its cohomology class evaluates to , and dependence on is additive. Thus this gives a section of the UCT quotient. F5 supplies the required choices when sections in all degrees are wanted. The Künneth splitting is supplied by the completed construction in F2.
For UCT nonnaturality use , , , and . Then , , and because the incoming coboundary is . Evaluation is and its kernel is the first coordinate. The chain automorphism , fixing , fixes both homology groups but acts on by . No lift of is fixed, so no section can be natural in . F2 gives the corresponding tensor shear obstruction for Künneth. Zero filtration pieces may remove an individual extension problem, but cannot turn this counterexample into a natural splitting theorem.
Depends on
Used by
- A collapse with a noncanonical extension choice Example
- UCT as a two-column spectral sequence over the integers Example
- UCT collapse gives a natural splitting False statement
- Writing E2 implies H proves convergence False statement
Dependency tree · two levels
26 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
- Weibel, Sections 5.2 and 5.6 (standard reference, not scraped)