Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-02
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 Samuel completion is compact, and under dependent choice plus the ultrafilter lemma it compactifies every separated uniform space

Statement

Assume the ultrafilter lemma. Every Samuel completion η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to S(X) is compact. If dependent choice is also assumed and (X,U)(X,\mathcal U) is separated, then the same map, read from XX with its original induced topology, makes S(X)S(X) a Samuel compactification.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A uniform space (X,U)(X,\mathcal U), a Samuel completion η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to S(X), the ultrafilter lemma, and, for the final assertion, dependent choice and separatedness of U\mathcal U.

[L1]

The Samuel uniformity is totally bounded (The Samuel uniformity is totally bounded).

[L3]

A dense uniformly continuous image of a totally bounded uniform space is totally bounded (Total boundedness passes to a uniform space with a dense uniformly continuous image).

[L4]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, every complete totally bounded uniform space is compact (Assuming the ultrafilter lemma, every complete and totally bounded uniform space is compact).

[L5]

Under dependent choice the Samuel and original induced topologies agree; separatedness is equivalent to Hausdorffness of the induced topology, and a separated uniformizable topology is Tychonoff (Assuming dependent choice, the Samuel uniformity induces the original topology, A uniformity is separated if and only if its induced topology is Hausdorff, Assuming dependent choice, a nonempty topological space is separated-uniformizable if and only if it is Tychonoff).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The completion map has dense image and is uniformly continuous, so [L1] and [L3] make S(X)S(X) totally bounded.

L1L2L3
1.2

The space S(X)S(X) is complete by [L2], so [L4] makes it compact under the ultrafilter lemma.

L2L4
1.3

Under dependent choice, [L5] identifies the original and Samuel topologies; if U\mathcal U is separated, the Samuel uniformity is separated as well, so η\eta is a uniform embedding for US\mathcal U_S and a topological embedding for the original topology.

L2L5
2.1

The image is dense by [L2], the source topology is Tychonoff by [L5], and step 1.2 gives compact Hausdorff target; hence the pair is a compactification and therefore a Samuel compactification.

step 1.2step 1.3L2L5

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 133 results over 19 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