Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-13
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.

Substitution by a zero-constant series is a ring homomorphism, and composition is associative when both inner series have zero constant coefficient

Statement

Let g∈R⟦x⟧ have zero constant coefficient. Then

Sg:R⟦x⟧→R⟦x⟧,Sg(f)=f∘g,

is a unital ring homomorphism. Thus

(f+h)∘g=f∘g+h∘g,(fh)∘g=(f∘g)(h∘g),1∘g=1.

If g and h both have zero constant coefficient, then

(f∘g)∘h=f∘(g∘h)

for every f∈R⟦x⟧. Admissibility of the four displayed compositions is not by itself enough for this identity; the hypothesis on the two inner series is what makes both sides the same locally finite rearrangement.

Also f∘x=f and x∘f=f. Composition need not be commutative.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses and notation of the statement above.

[F1]

Formal composition is f∘g=∑n≥0[xn]f gn, defined when f is a polynomial or when g(0)=0 (Composition f∘g of formal series when the outer series is a polynomial or the inner series has zero constant term).

[F2]

A summable family may be bijectively reindexed or partitioned and regrouped without changing its sum (Summable formal families may be regrouped and rearranged, distribute over multiplication, and have well-defined locally finite products).

Proof

technique · compare finite coefficient sums
1.1

Linearity follows by splitting the locally finite defining sum. For multiplication, expand (fh)∘g using the Cauchy coefficients of fh and regroup the locally finite double family to obtain (∑i[xi]f gi)(∑j[xj]h gj). Constants give 1∘g=1.

givenF1F2F3
1.2

For associativity assume [x0]g=[x0]h=0. Then ord⁡x(gn)≥n and ord⁡x(hm)≥m, so expanding either side by [F1] gives the same doubly indexed family [xn]f [xm](gn) hm, in which only finitely many terms contribute below each degree. [F2] therefore rearranges one into the other. The hypothesis is used exactly here: without it a term of arbitrarily high index can contribute in low degree, and the two sides need not agree even when all four compositions are individually admissible.

givenF1F2
1.3

Substituting x leaves every coefficient in place, while substituting into the polynomial x returns the inner series. Finally, x2∘(x+x2)=x2+2x3+x4 whereas (x+x2)∘x2=x2+x4 over Z, so composition is not commutative.

givenF1
2.1

Steps 1.1-1.3 give the homomorphism, associativity, identity, and noncommutativity claims.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3∎

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

10 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