Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (openai/gpt-5.4)verified 2026-07-26 (claude-opus-5)
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 (P,)(P, \le) be a chain-complete poset and let f:PPf : P \to P be progressive, that is xf(x)x \le f(x) for every xPx \in P (Chain-complete poset). Then ff has a fixed point: there exists cPc \in P with f(c)=cf(c) = c.

No form of the Axiom of Choice is used, and ff is not assumed to be monotone, injective, or continuous in any sense.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A chain-complete poset (P,)(P, \le) and a progressive map f:PPf : P \to P, with MM the smallest ff-admissible subset of PP.

[L2]

MM is admissible: closed under ff, and closed under suprema of its chains (A smallest admissible set exists).

[L3]

Every chain of PP has a least upper bound in PP (Chain-complete poset).

[L4]

ff is progressive: xf(x)x \le f(x) for every xPx \in P (Chain-complete poset).

[L5]

The order is antisymmetric: uvu \le v and vuv \le u imply u=vu = v (Partial order and partially ordered set).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

MM is a chain, so it has a least upper bound in PP; write c=supMc = \sup M.

L1L3construct
1.2

Progressivity gives cf(c)c \le f(c).

L4
2.1

MM is a chain contained in MM, and MM is closed under suprema of its chains, so cMc \in M.

step 1.1L1L2
3.1

Since MM is closed under ff, we have f(c)Mf(c) \in M.

step 2.1L2
4.1

Since cc is an upper bound of MM and f(c)Mf(c) \in M, we get f(c)cf(c) \le c.

step 3.1step 1.1
5.1

From f(c)cf(c) \le c and cf(c)c \le f(c), antisymmetry gives f(c)=cf(c) = c, so cc is a fixed point of ff.

step 4.1step 1.2L5

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 ff: no iteration argument is available, since ff need not be monotone and the chain MM need not be countable.
  • The fixed point found is supM\sup M, and MM 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