Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-28
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.

Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability

Statement

Assume the ultrafilter lemma. A group G is amenable if and only if it satisfies the Folner condition.

The proof spends the ultrafilter extension twice: first to take a limit of finite averages, and then to extend compatible finite Hall matchings when proving the reverse implication by contradiction.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A group G and the ultrafilter lemma.

[A1]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, every proper filter extends to an ultrafilter (The ultrafilter lemma, from the Axiom of Choice: every filter extends to an ultrafilter).

[L1]

Amenability means existence of a left-invariant mean (Left-invariant means and amenable groups).

[L2]

The Folner condition asks for finite nonempty sets with arbitrarily small boundary under each finite test set (Folner sets and the Folner condition).

[L3]

One may replace symmetric differences by one-sided boundaries up to a fixed factor (Equivalent boundary formulations of the Folner condition).

[L4]

Hall's theorem gives a matching saturating the finite left part of a finite bipartite graph exactly when every subset of that left part has enough neighbours (Hall's marriage theorem for a finite bipartite graph).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Assume G satisfies the Folner condition. Let D be the directed set of triples (S,n,F) with SG finite, n1, and F an (S,1/n)-Folner set, ordered by enlarging S and n. For d=(S,n,F), define md(f)=F1xFf(x). These md are means, and [L3] implies that if gS then md(gf)md(f)f/n. The cofinal tails Dg,N={(S,n,F):gS, nN} have the finite intersection property, so by [A1] some ultrafilter on D contains all of them. The ultrafilter limit of the bounded family (md(f))dD is therefore a left-invariant mean on G.

A1L1L2L3givenconstruct
1.2

Assume instead that G is amenable but not Folner. Then some finite SG and ε>0 satisfy: for every finite nonempty FG, some sS has sFFεF. Put S0=S{e} and δ=ε/2. Since sF=F, [L3] gives sFFδF for that s, and hence S0F(1+δ)F.

L2L3givenalgebra
2.1

Choose m1 with (1+δ)m2 and put K=S0m. Applying step 1.2 successively to F,S0F,,S0m1F gives KF2F for every finite nonempty FG.

step 1.2constructalgebra
3.1

Form the bipartite graph with left vertices G×{1,2}, right vertices G, and edges (g,r)kg for kK. If P is a finite set of left vertices and Q is its projection to G, then N(P)=KQ and P2QKQ by step 2.1. Thus [L4] gives a matching saturating every prescribed finite left set.

L4step 2.1construct
4.1

Let M be the set of finite partial matchings in this graph, and for finite PG×{1,2} let XP be the set of members of M whose domains contain P. Step 3.1 shows that the family (XP) has the finite-intersection property. By [A1], an ultrafilter U on M contains every XP. For a left vertex , the set X{} is the disjoint union of the finitely many sets on which the partial matching assigns a fixed neighbour yN(). Exactly one such cell belongs to U; call its neighbour Φ(). If distinct left vertices had the same Φ-value, the two corresponding cells would have empty intersection, contradicting closure of U under intersections. Hence Φ:G×{1,2}G is injective and satisfies Φ(g,r)Kg.

A1step 3.1construct
5.1

Write Φr(g)=Φ(g,r) and, for r{1,2} and kK, put Dr,k={g:Φr(g)=kg}. For each fixed r, the sets Dr,k partition G, while the sets kDr,k partition the range Rr of Φr; injectivity of Φ makes R1 and R2 disjoint. If mG is a left-invariant mean, write mG(E)=mG(1E). Finite additivity and invariance give mG(Rr)=kKmG(kDr,k)=kKmG(Dr,k)=mG(G)=1 for r=1,2. But R1R2=, so positivity gives 2=mG(R1)+mG(R2)=mG(R1R2)mG(G)=1, a contradiction.

L1step 4.1algebracontradiction
6.1

Therefore an amenable group cannot fail the Folner condition. Together with step 1.1, this proves the equivalence.

step 1.1step 1.2step 5.1discharge-contradiction

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

21 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