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.
Left total derived functor is independent up to a unique augmentation-compatible natural isomorphism
Statement
Two supplied projective replacement systems for the same additive give a natural isomorphism of left total derived functors, unique among natural comparisons commuting with the augmentations. This is not uniqueness of unrestricted natural automorphisms.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Two supplied projective replacement systems for the same additive give a natural isomorphism of left total derived functors, unique among natural comparisons commuting with the augmentations. This is not uniqueness of unrestricted natural automorphisms.
The replacement construction has augmentation (Left total derived functor on the bounded above derived category).
Hom out of a K-projective complex needs no roof (Morphisms from a homotopically projective complex need no roof).
Proof
Write and . The no-roof bijection gives a unique map in such that in . The opposite comparison is inverse by the same uniqueness. This works for zero complexes and identity replacements. Applying additive preserves these homotopy identities.
For a derived arrow the two paths between the chosen projective models have the same localized image, hence coincide in by the no-roof bijection. Thus is a natural isomorphism commuting with augmentations.
On any projective complex , the augmentation of either construction is invertible: its replacement map is a homotopy equivalence by step 1.1 applied to the identity replacement. Therefore augmentation compatibility forces a comparison at to be . Naturality along the isomorphism then forces its value at every . This proves precisely the stated uniqueness.