Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)verified 2026-07-29 (claude-fable-5)
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.

If ∣A∣>k∣B∣ then every f:A→B has a fibre with more than k elements, and for nonempty B some fibre has at least ⌈∣A∣/∣B∣⌉ elements

Statement

Let A and B be finite sets, let k∈N, let f:A→B, and for b∈B write

f−1[{b}]  :=  { a∈A : f(a)=b }

for the fibre of f over b (Injection, surjection, bijection). Then:

  1. The counting form. If ∣A∣>k ∣B∣ then there is b∈B with ∣f−1[{b}]∣>k.
  2. The ceiling form. If B≠∅ then there is b∈B with ∣f−1[{b}]∣≥⌈∣A∣/∣B∣⌉ (⌈m/n⌉ for naturals m and n≥1: the least q∈N with m≤nq, which is defined because ∣B∣≥1).

Every quantity here is a natural number and the comparisons are those of N (Order on the natural numbers). Clause 1 at k=0 says that a nonempty A has a nonempty fibre. Clause 1 is vacuous when B=∅, since then k ∣B∣=0, the hypothesis says A≠∅, and there is no function from a nonempty set to ∅ for the conclusion to be about. Clause 2 at A=∅ says only that some fibre has at least 0 elements, since ⌈0/∣B∣⌉=0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Finite sets A and B, a natural number k, a function f:A→B, and the fibres f−1[{b}] for b∈B.

[L2]

Monotonicity over a finite index set: if c,d:S→N satisfy ci≤di for every i∈S, then ∑i∈Sci≤∑i∈Sdi. Both sums are computed through one enumeration ψ:∣S∣→S (The sum ∑i∈Sai over a finite index set, and its product form), and cψ(j)≤dψ(j) for every j<∣S∣, so clause 4 of Laws of finite sums and products in N, and ι(∑k<nak)=∑k<nι(ak) applies (Finite sums and finite products, by recursion).

[L3]

A constant natural summand: ∑i∈Sk=∣S∣⋅k (The sum ∑i∈Sai over a finite index set, and its product form, clause (c)).

[L4]

Order and arithmetic of N: multiplication is commutative (Multiplication is commutative); exactly one of p<q, p=q, q<p holds (Trichotomy of the order on N); p<q if and only if σ(p)≤q (Discreteness: σ(n) is the immediate successor); every nonzero natural is a successor (Every nonzero natural number is a successor); and 0≤p for every p (Order on the natural numbers).

[L5]

The ceiling (⌈m/n⌉ for naturals m and n≥1: the least q∈N with m≤nq): for n≥1, ⌈m/n⌉ is the least q∈N with m≤nq, so any q<⌈m/n⌉ satisfies nq<m.

[L6]

∣B∣=0 if and only if B=∅ (The cardinality ∣A∣ of a finite set, clause (b)).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

Suppose, for contradiction, that ∣A∣>k ∣B∣ and yet ∣f−1[{b}]∣≤k for every b∈B.

assume-contra
1.2

By [L1], ∣A∣=∑b∈B∣f−1[{b}]∣.

L1
1.3

For clause 2, assume B≠∅; then ∣B∣≠0 by [L6], so ∣B∣≥1 and c:=⌈∣A∣/∣B∣⌉ is defined, and B has at least one element.

L4L5L6
2.1

Clause 1. Under the assumption of step 1.1, monotonicity and the constant sum give ∣A∣=∑b∈B∣f−1[{b}]∣≤∑b∈Bk=∣B∣⋅k=k ∣B∣, which contradicts ∣A∣>k ∣B∣ by trichotomy. So the supposition of step 1.1 is untenable and clause 1 holds.

step 1.1step 1.2L2L3L4
2.2

Clause 2 when c=0. Choose any b∈B, available by step 1.3; then ∣f−1[{b}]∣≥0=c by [L4].

step 1.3L4
3.1

Clause 2 when c≠0. Write c=σ(q) by [L4]. Then q<c, so [L5] gives ∣B∣ q<∣A∣, that is ∣A∣>q ∣B∣ by commutativity; clause 1, established in step 2.1, therefore produces b∈B with ∣f−1[{b}]∣>q, and ∣f−1[{b}]∣≥σ(q)=c by [L4].

step 1.3step 2.1L4L5
4.1

Clause 1 is step 2.1, and clause 2 is steps 2.2 and 3.1, whose two cases are exhaustive.

step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1discharge-contradiction∎

Remarks

  • Where the ceiling earns its keep. Clause 2 is not a separate argument: it is clause 1 applied at the single value q with σ(q)=c, and the only thing that has to be checked is that this q satisfies ∣A∣>q∣B∣, which is exactly the minimality of c. That is the whole reason the ceiling was defined by minimality rather than by a division.

  • The case c=0 is not a degenerate nuisance. It occurs precisely when A=∅, where the conclusion is empty of content but still needs an element of B to be stated about, and that is where B≠∅ is spent in clause 2.

  • Disjointness of the fibres is free, since a fibre is determined by the value it lies over. This is what lets the sum rule be applied with no hypothesis beyond finiteness, in contrast to a union of arbitrary sets.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

46 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