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.
Bourbaki–Witt fixed point theorem
Statement
Let be a chain-complete poset and let be progressive, that is for every (Chain-complete poset). Then has a fixed point: there exists with .
No form of the Axiom of Choice is used, and is not assumed to be monotone, injective, or continuous in any sense.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A chain-complete poset and a progressive map , with the smallest -admissible subset of .
is a chain (The smallest admissible set is a chain).
is admissible: closed under , and closed under suprema of its chains (A smallest admissible set exists).
Every chain of has a least upper bound in (Chain-complete poset).
is progressive: for every (Chain-complete poset).
The order is antisymmetric: and imply (Partial order and partially ordered set).
Proof
is a chain, so it has a least upper bound in ; write .
Progressivity gives .
is a chain contained in , and is closed under suprema of its chains, so .
Since is closed under , we have .
Since is an upper bound of and , we get .
From and , antisymmetry gives , so is a fixed point of .
Remarks
- Why this matters here. The usual route to Zorn's lemma runs through transfinite recursion, which needs ordinals, transfinite induction and replacement. Bourbaki–Witt replaces all of that with the smallest admissible set, so the foundations page that supports Zorn's lemma stays ordinal-free. Ordinals are still worth having, but nothing on the path to Zorn or to the ultrafilter lemma requires them.
- The theorem itself is choice-free. Choice enters only in Zorn's lemma, at the single step where a strict upper bound is selected for every chain simultaneously. Keeping the two separate is what lets later pages state honestly which of their results need choice.
- Both hypotheses are load-bearing. Progressivity without chain-completeness fails (A progressive map with no fixed point, on a poset that is not chain-complete ↗), and the fixed point is genuinely produced at the top of a chain, not by iterating : no iteration argument is available, since need not be monotone and the chain need not be countable.
- The fixed point found is , and is the smallest admissible set, so the construction is canonical rather than a choice among many fixed points.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 14 results over 11 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Bourbaki-Witt Principle (Menemui Matematik 39(1), 2017) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Bourbaki–Witt theorem (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Complete partial order (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)