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.
Canonical countable Lindenbaum–Henkin construction
Statement
In classical ZF, given an explicit injection of a set signature into and a consistent -sentence theory , there is a countable constant expansion and a consistent, deductively closed, syntactically complete Henkin sentence theory in it. A seed constant is included. Countability here means an injection into ; no effective decision algorithm is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The explicit signature injection and consistency of .
The potential staged alphabet and its finite syntax have uniform natural-number codes and exhaustive sentence sequences. (Canonical natural-number codes for countable Henkin syntax)
A fresh witness axiom preserves consistency, and a seed constant alone is conservative. (Adding one fresh witness preserves consistency)
A consistent theory can decide a sentence, taking its positive side if consistent and its negative side otherwise. (A consistent theory can decide one sentence)
Finite support, proof composition and consistency of increasing unions hold. (Finite support, weakening, and composition of derivations)
A specified successor operation on a set with an initial state has a unique natural-number recursion. (The recursion theorem)
Arbitrary pure constant expansions are conservative for original sentences. (Fresh constants may be eliminated from a finite proof)
Proof
Start with and , consistent in by F2. For each round , F1 provides a fixed exhaustive sequence of -sentences. Reserve a distinct constant for each index , disjoint from . Let include all these constants, and regard in this pure expansion; it remains consistent by F6.
In round put . At index put if this is consistent, and otherwise. F3 makes consistent. If , put ; otherwise put . The new constant occurs in neither nor the matrix, since only earlier indices have been used and every enumerated sentence belongs to . F2 gives consistency in the one-constant extension, and F6 gives it in the whole . Thus each is consistent.
The test “has no finite proof of bottom” is a set-theoretic predicate, so the successor rule in step 2.1 is a definable function, even when not computable. Encode its state by the index and the current subset of the potential sentence set; define any unused malformed-state transition to a fixed state. F5 then supplies the inner sequence, and F4 makes consistent. The outer round operation is likewise definable on a set of language/theory states, so F5 supplies all rounds. No arbitrary choice of enumerations or of consistent sides is made.
Put and . Each remains consistent in by F6, so F4 gives consistency of . Every finite formula in lies in some by F1. Round therefore decides each such sentence and supplies a witness axiom for every such existential sentence. Repeated enumeration entries do no harm: each index has its own fresh constant.
Let . This is a set by Separation. If proved bottom, finite support would use finitely many members of ; replace them by their finite -proofs using F4 to contradict consistency of . The same composition shows that every sentence consequence of already belongs to . It contains , all decisions and all witness axioms from step 4.1, and the seed is a closed term. F1 injects the union alphabet and syntax into . Thus has every asserted property in ZF.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
18 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
- Moschovakis, Lemma 1I.4 and both sublemmas, printed pp40–41; explicit two-round-index witness-axiom adaptation. (standard reference, not scraped)