Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-29
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.

The product rule: A×B=AB\lvert A \times B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert\,\lvert B\rvert, and i<mAi=i<mAi\big\lvert\prod_{i<m} A_i\big\rvert = \prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert

Statement

  1. If AA and BB are finite then A×BA \times B is finite and A×B=AB\lvert A \times B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert \cdot \lvert B\rvert (The cardinality A\lvert A\rvert of a finite set).
  2. Let mNm \in \mathbb{N} and let A0,,Am1A_0, \dots, A_{m-1} be finite sets. Write i<mAi:={f:f is a function with domain m and f(i)Ai for every i<m}.\prod_{i<m} A_i := \{\, f : f \text{ is a function with domain } m \text{ and } f(i) \in A_i \text{ for every } i < m \,\}. Then i<mAi\prod_{i<m} A_i is finite and i<mAi=i<mAi\big\lvert\prod_{i<m} A_i\big\rvert = \prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert, the right-hand product being the N\mathbb{N}-valued one of Finite sums and finite products of natural numbers, k<nak\sum_{k<n} a_k and k<nak\prod_{k<n} a_k in N\mathbb{N}.

At m=0m = 0 clause 2 reads i<0Ai=1\big\lvert\prod_{i<0} A_i\big\rvert = 1: there is exactly one function with domain \varnothing, the empty function, and the empty product is 11. Both sides are computed, not stipulated.

a0a1a2b0b1(a0;b0)(a1;b0)(a2;b0)(a0;b1)(a1;b1)(a2;b1)jA£Bj=3¢2=6

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Finite sets AA, BB and a finite list A0,,Am1A_0, \dots, A_{m-1} of finite sets. Recall σ(m)=m{m}\sigma(m) = m \cup \{m\} and m={i:i<m}m = \{\,i : i < m\,\}.

[L2]

Cardinality (The cardinality A\lvert A\rvert of a finite set): A\lvert A\rvert is the unique natural with AAA \approx \lvert A\rvert; n=n\lvert n\rvert = n; and a bijection transports finiteness and cardinality.

[L4]

Sums over a finite index set (The sum iSai\sum_{i \in S} a_i over a finite index set, and its product form): iSc=Sc\sum_{i \in S} c = \lvert S\rvert \cdot c for a constant cc.

[L5]

Recursion clause for the N\mathbb{N}-valued product (Finite sums and finite products of natural numbers, k<nak\sum_{k<n} a_k and k<nak\prod_{k<n} a_k in N\mathbb{N}): i<0ci=1\prod_{i<0} c_i = 1 and i<σ(m)ci=(i<mci)cm\prod_{i<\sigma(m)} c_i = \big(\prod_{i<m} c_i\big)\cdot c_m.

[L6]

Maps (Injection, surjection, bijection, Equinumerous sets, ABA \approx B and ABA \preceq B): a map with a two-sided inverse is a bijection, and composites of bijections are bijections.

[L7]

Arithmetic: multiplication of naturals is commutative (Multiplication is commutative, Multiplication of natural numbers); and m={i:i<m}m = \{\,i : i<m\,\}, σ(m)=m{m}\sigma(m) = m \cup \{m\}, mmm \notin m (On N\mathbb{N} the order is membership: m<n    mnm < n \iff m \in n, The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann)).

Proof

technique · induction
1.1

The slices. For bBb \in B put Ab:=A×{b}A_b := A \times \{b\}. The map a(a,b)a \mapsto (a,b) is a bijection of AA onto AbA_b, with inverse the first projection, so AbA_b is finite with Ab=A\lvert A_b\rvert = \lvert A\rvert; and the family (Ab)bB(A_b)_{b \in B} is pairwise disjoint, since an element of AbA_b has second coordinate bb. Moreover A×B=bBAbA \times B = \bigcup_{b \in B} A_b.

L2L6construct
1.2

Base case of clause 2, at m=0m = 0. A function with domain 0=0 = \varnothing is the empty function and there is exactly one of them, so i<0Ai={}\prod_{i<0} A_i = \{\varnothing\}, which is finite with cardinality 11 because bb \mapsto \varnothing is a bijection of 1={0}1 = \{0\} onto it; and i<0Ai=1\prod_{i<0}\lvert A_i\rvert = 1 by [L5].

baseL2L5L6
1.3

Inductive hypothesis for clause 2: fix mm and assume that for every finite list A0,,Am1A_0, \dots, A_{m-1} of finite sets the set i<mAi\prod_{i<m} A_i is finite with cardinality i<mAi\prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert.

ih
2.1

Clause 1. By step 1.1 and [L3], A×BA \times B is finite and A×B=bBAb=bBA=BA=AB\lvert A \times B\rvert = \sum_{b \in B}\lvert A_b\rvert = \sum_{b \in B}\lvert A\rvert = \lvert B\rvert \cdot \lvert A\rvert = \lvert A\rvert \cdot \lvert B\rvert, using [L4] for the constant summand and commutativity for the last step.

step 1.1L3L4L7
3.1

Inductive step for clause 2. Let A0,,AmA_0, \dots, A_m be finite. Define Φ:i<σ(m)Ai(i<mAi)×Am\Phi : \prod_{i<\sigma(m)} A_i \to \big(\prod_{i<m} A_i\big) \times A_m by Φ(f)=(fm, f(m))\Phi(f) = (f\restriction m,\ f(m)), where fmf \restriction m is the restriction of ff to mm. Its inverse is (g,a)g{(m,a)}(g, a) \mapsto g \cup \{(m,a)\}, a function with domain σ(m)=m{m}\sigma(m) = m \cup \{m\} because mmm \notin m; the two composites are the identity, so Φ\Phi is a bijection. By the hypothesis of step 1.3 and clause 1, the codomain is finite with cardinality (i<mAi)Am=i<σ(m)Ai\big(\prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert\big)\cdot\lvert A_m\rvert = \prod_{i<\sigma(m)}\lvert A_i\rvert, and transport carries this to i<σ(m)Ai\prod_{i<\sigma(m)} A_i.

step 1.3step 2.1L2L5L6L7
4.1

By step 1.2, step 3.1 and induction, clause 2 holds for every mNm \in \mathbb{N}.

step 1.2step 3.1L1
5.1

Clause 1 is step 2.1 and clause 2 is step 4.1.

step 2.1step 4.1discharge-induction

Remarks

  • No arithmetic is needed for clause 1. Slicing A×BA \times B over BB and applying the sum rule replaces the usual bijection (p,q)pB+q(p,q) \mapsto p\lvert B\rvert + q, which would have to be proved bijective by division with remainder. Division with remainder lives later in the reading order, so the slicing argument is not merely shorter here, it is the one available.

  • The empty cases are computed. With A=A = \varnothing and BB arbitrary, clause 1 reads =0B=0\lvert\varnothing\rvert = 0 \cdot \lvert B\rvert = 0, which is right because ×B=\varnothing \times B = \varnothing. With m=0m = 0, clause 2 reads 1=11 = 1. Neither is a convention.

  • The infinite analogue of clause 1 fails in the shape a reader expects. A product of two infinite sets need not be strictly larger than either factor: N×NN\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N} \approx \mathbb{N} (N×NN\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \approx \mathbb{N}). The companion page records that as a false statement, with finiteness located as the hypothesis that fails.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 69 results over 24 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.

Sources