Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28
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 and a matching-extension principle, a group is amenable if and only if it is not paradoxical

Statement

Assume the ultrafilter lemma and the following perfect-matching extension principle for G: whenever a finite set K⊆G satisfies ∣KF∣≥2∣F∣ for every finite nonempty F⊆G, the finite Hall matchings in the bipartite graph with left vertices G×{1,2}, right vertices G, and edges (g,r)∼kg for k∈K extend to a bijection Φ:G×{1,2}→G satisfying Φ(g,r)∈Kg.

Under these assumptions, G is amenable if and only if it is not paradoxical.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A group G, the ultrafilter lemma, and the matching-extension principle stated above.

[L1]

A paradoxical decomposition forbids a left-invariant mean (Paradoxical groups admit no invariant mean).

[A1]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, amenability is equivalent to the Folner condition (Under the ultrafilter lemma, the Folner condition is equivalent to amenability).

[A2]

The perfect-matching extension principle above upgrades the finite Hall matchings coming from a doubling set K to an edge-respecting bijection G×{1,2}→G.

[L2]

Hall's theorem saturates a finite bipartite left part exactly when every finite subfamily has enough neighbors (Hall's marriage theorem for a finite bipartite graph).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

If G is paradoxical, then [L1] says that no left-invariant mean exists, so G is not amenable. This proves the forward implication of the statement.

1.2A1givenalgebra

Assume now that G is not amenable. By contrapositive use of [A1], there is a finite set K⊆G with e∈K such that ∣KF∣≥2∣F∣ for every finite nonempty F⊆G. Indeed, if no such K existed, then for a finite test set S and ε>0 one could put S0={e}∪S∪S−1, choose m with (1+ε/2)m>2, and find finite nonempty F with ∣S0mF∣<2∣F∣. Among the layers Fj=S0jF, some ratio ∣Fj+1∣/∣Fj∣ would then be below 1+ε/2, giving ∣sFj△Fj∣<ε∣Fj∣ for every s∈S and hence the Folner condition.

2.1A2L2step 1.2construct

Form the bipartite graph from [A2]. For every finite left subset P⊆G×{1,2} with projection Q⊆G, step 1.2 gives ∣N(P)∣=∣KQ∣≥2∣Q∣≥∣P∣, so [L2] produces a matching saturating P. By [A2], these finite matchings extend to an edge-respecting bijection Φ:G×{1,2}→G. For r∈{1,2} and k∈K, put Cr,k={Φ(g,r):Φ(g,r)=kg}. The finitely many Cr,k are pairwise disjoint and partition G because Φ is bijective. For fixed r, the translated pieces k−1Cr,k partition G, because they are exactly the fibers in the domain copy G×{r}. Thus the two subfamilies (C1,k)k∈K and (C2,k)k∈K, with translators k−1, form a paradoxical decomposition.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove both directions, so G is amenable exactly when it is not paradoxical.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

14 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