Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14
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.

Compact Lie-group actions are proper

Statement

Every continuous action of a compact Lie group G on a Hausdorff locally compact manifold M is proper: its action-graph map Θ(g,x)=(gx,x) has compact inverse images of compact sets. In particular, every smooth action of a compact Lie group is proper in the sense of Free and proper Lie-group actions.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A compact Lie group G, a Hausdorff locally compact manifold M, and a continuous action G×MM.

[F1]

The action is proper exactly when Θ:G×MM×M, Θ(g,x)=(gx,x), has compact inverse images of compact subsets. Free and proper Lie-group actions.

[F3]
[F5]

A finite product of Hausdorff spaces is Hausdorff. Arbitrary products preserve T0, T1, and Hausdorffness.

Proof

technique · direct compactness argument
1.1

Let KM×M be compact and let D=pr2(K). The projection is continuous, so D is compact by [F2].

givenF2
2.1

Since both coordinates of every (g,x)Θ1(K) satisfy (gx,x)K, its second coordinate x lies in D. Hence Θ1(K)G×D, and G×D is compact by [F3].

step 1.1F3
3.1

The manifold M is Hausdorff by hypothesis, so M×M is Hausdorff by [F5]. Thus K is closed by [F4]. The map Θ is continuous because the action and the second projection are continuous, so Θ1(K) is closed in G×M, and therefore also closed in the subspace G×D.

givenF4F5step 1.1step 2.1
4.1

By [F4], the closed subset Θ1(K) of the compact space G×D is compact. Since K was arbitrary, [F1] proves properness. Local compactness of M is part of the stated manifold context but is not needed in this compact-domain argument; no freeness or choice principle is used.

F1F4step 2.1step 3.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

44 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