Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10
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 ΔU there are a finite Γ and T proofs of existence of a suitable TM/CTM of Γ and of its conversion into a set model of Δ. 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

[F1]

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.

[F2]

Transitive models and finite-fragment transfer data: For a sentence theory Γ in the membership language, TM(Γ) means that some nonempty transitive set M, with actual restricted membership, satisfies every sentence of Γ. Transitive means xMyx(yM). The assertion CTM(Γ) additionally requires an external injection Mω.

A finite-fragment transfer specifies, for each external finite target fragment Δ, a finite source fragment Γ and a theorem converting every suitable TM or CTM of Γ into a set model of Δ. Suitability includes every auxiliary axiom, parameter restriction and metatheory needed by the conversion. Inclusion ΓZF 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.

[F3]

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 ω. 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.

1.1

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.

F1F2given
2.1

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.

F3step 1.1

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