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.
Finite-fragment model transfer proves relative consistency
Statement
Let T extend enough ZF to formalize set-model soundness, and let U be an explicitly countable sentence theory. Suppose that for each external finite there are a finite and T proofs of existence of a suitable TM/CTM of and of its conversion into a set model of . Then external Con(T) implies Con(U). This is a metatheorem with fixed finite proof inputs, not a uniform internal all-fragment assertion.
Facts & Assumptions
Finite support, weakening, and composition of derivations: In ZF, every derivation from a sentence theory uses finitely many assumptions. Weakening, concatenation and replacement of proved sentence premises by their proofs preserve derivability. The union of an inclusion-chain of consistent sentence theories in one fixed signature is consistent, including the empty chain.
Transitive models and finite-fragment transfer data: For a sentence theory in the membership language, means that some nonempty transitive set M, with actual restricted membership, satisfies every sentence of . Transitive means . The assertion additionally requires an external injection .
A finite-fragment transfer specifies, for each external finite target fragment , a finite source fragment and a theorem converting every suitable TM or CTM of into a set model of . Suitability includes every auxiliary axiom, parameter restriction and metatheory needed by the conversion. Inclusion is syntactic, using the fixed axiom presentation.
The model convention is def-theories-models-and-semantic-consequence, and the schema syntax is def-coded-first-order-zf-theory. For definable classes use def-relativization-to-a-definable-class separately for each fixed formula; do not quantify over a universe truth predicate. Countability in this definition is outside the proposed model. A model or CTM of the full source theory is not part of finite-fragment data unless explicitly assumed.
Models and consistency for countable theories: In external ZF, an explicitly countable sentence theory is consistent iff it has a nonempty set model, and iff it has a model with carrier injecting into . For an effective presentation, external consistency agrees with the truth of its certified Con formula in standard arithmetic. No transitivity or external well-foundedness of a model follows.
Proof
Given: The two stipulated T proofs for every fixed finite target fragment and sufficient internal set-model soundness in T.
If U had an actual refutation p, F1 extracts the finite set Delta of its nonlogical axiom lines. The same annotated proof is a Delta refutation. Apply the stipulated fragment data F2 to exactly this Delta: its two T proofs give a suitable source model and a model N of Delta. Finite assembly of these proofs is licensed by F1.
Inside T, formal soundness applied to the fixed finite derivation p says every nonempty model of Delta satisfies its contradictory last sentence. The model N just obtained cannot satisfy that sentence; thus T proves a contradiction. The set-model soundness principle is part of the stated strength hypothesis on T, consistent with the external model/consistency direction F3. Therefore Con(T) rules out every actual U refutation, giving Con(U). Only the single finite support of the alleged proof was used.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
12 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
- Geschke, Models of Set Theory — §4 paragraph preceding Lemma 4.1 pp10–11, corrected explicit formalization hypotheses (standard reference, not scraped)