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
implies , including the stated exclusions. No converse or internal inaccessible is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The standard arithmetized consistency predicates.
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.
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
Put “there is an inaccessible cardinal” and let be the explicitly countable target theory in the Statement. For each external finite , F1 explicitly supplies a finite source fragment together with a -proof that a suitable countable transitive model of exists and a -proof converting that model into a set model of . These are exactly the two externally indexed hypotheses of F2. Hence external implies . No uniform arithmetic proof-code map is used.
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 . Thus the displayed one-way consistency implication, and no converse or internal large-cardinal assertion, follows.
Depends on
- Fixed finite-fragment verification for the Solovay construction
- Finite-fragment model transfer proves relative consistency
- The Solovay model fails the full Axiom of Choice
- The Solovay model has no Vitali or Bernstein set
- The Solovay model has no Hamel basis and no discontinuous additive real function
- The Solovay model has no Banach–Tarski decomposition
Used by
- Solovay's model proves that an inaccessible cardinal exists False statement
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
- Solovay 1970, Theorem 1 and p. 2 (standard reference, not scraped)