Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-14
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.

Solovay-model regularity is consistent relative to an inaccessible cardinal

Statement

Con(ZFC+an inaccessible) implies Con(ZF+DC+universal LM+BP+PSP+¬AC), including the stated exclusions. No converse or internal inaccessible is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The standard arithmetized consistency predicates.

[F1]

Fixed finite-fragment verification for the Solovay construction: for every externally fixed finite target fragment, the source theory proves that a set model of that fragment exists by a finite reflected-model construction.

[F2]

Finite-fragment model transfer proves relative consistency: externally indexed finite-fragment model transfers imply the one-way consistency implication, without a uniform internal proof transformer.

Proof

1.1

Put T=ZFC+“there is an inaccessible cardinal” and let U be the explicitly countable target theory in the Statement. For each external finite ΔU, F1 explicitly supplies a finite source fragment Γ together with a T-proof that a suitable countable transitive model of Γ exists and a T-proof converting that model into a set model of Δ. These are exactly the two externally indexed hypotheses of F2. Hence external Con(T) implies Con(U). No uniform arithmetic proof-code map is used.

F1F2
2.1

The finite target formulas available in F1 include ZF, DC, universal LM/BP/PSP and failure of AC; F3 supplies the advertised named exclusions in that same target model, so any finite proof using them is covered by the same fragment construction. The inaccessible occurs only in T. Thus the displayed one-way consistency implication, and no converse or internal large-cardinal assertion, follows.

F1F3step 1.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

38 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