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

Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Schreier refinement theorem in an abelian category

Statement

Let

0=A0A1Am=X,0=B0B1Bn=X

be finite chains of subobjects in an abelian category. Then they admit refinements whose successive quotient objects can be paired up up to isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two finite subobject chains displayed in the statement.

[F1]

A refinement is obtained by inserting intermediate subobjects, and two finite chains are equivalent when their nonzero successive quotient objects can be paired up up to isomorphism.

[L1]

Each cell in the refinement grid is governed by the butterfly lemma (Zassenhaus butterfly lemma in an abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

For 0i<m and 0jn, define Ai,j:=Ai(Ai+1Bj). Then Ai,0=Ai and Ai,n=Ai+1, while Ai,jAi,j+1 for every j. Concatenating the chains Ai=Ai,0Ai,1Ai,n=Ai+1 over i=0,,m1 gives a refinement of the A-chain. Define Bj,i:=Bj(Bj+1Ai) symmetrically; concatenating those chains refines the B-chain.

F1construct
2.1

For every cell (i,j), apply [L1] to the pairs AiAi+1 and BjBj+1. It gives a canonical isomorphism Ai,j+1Ai,jBj,i+1Bj,i. So the successive quotients of the two refinements are paired by the same grid.

L1step 1.1
3.1

Some adjacent terms may coincide, producing zero successive quotients. By [F1], deleting those repetitions leaves equivalent refinements, and the quotient pairing from step 2.1 survives on every nonzero factor. Hence the original two chains admit equivalent refinements.

F1step 2.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

8 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