Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10
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.

Finite-fragment model transfer proves relative consistency

Statement

Let T extend enough ZF to formalize set-model soundness, and let U be an explicitly countable sentence theory. Suppose that for each external finite Δ⊆U there are a finite Γ and T proofs of existence of a suitable TM/CTM of Γ and of its conversion into a set model of Δ. Then external Con(T) implies Con(U). This is a metatheorem with fixed finite proof inputs, not a uniform internal all-fragment assertion.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Finite support, weakening, and composition of derivations: In ZF, every derivation from a sentence theory uses finitely many assumptions. Weakening, concatenation and replacement of proved sentence premises by their proofs preserve derivability. The union of an inclusion-chain of consistent sentence theories in one fixed signature is consistent, including the empty chain.

[F2]

Transitive models and finite-fragment transfer data: For a sentence theory Γ in the membership language, TM⁡(Γ) means that some nonempty transitive set M, with actual restricted membership, satisfies every sentence of Γ. Transitive means ∀x∈M∀y∈x(y∈M). The assertion CTM⁡(Γ) additionally requires an external injection M→ω.

A finite-fragment transfer specifies, for each external finite target fragment Δ, a finite source fragment Γ and a theorem converting every suitable TM or CTM of Γ into a set model of Δ. Suitability includes every auxiliary axiom, parameter restriction and metatheory needed by the conversion. Inclusion Γ⊆ZF is syntactic, using the fixed axiom presentation.

The model convention is def-theories-models-and-semantic-consequence, and the schema syntax is def-coded-first-order-zf-theory. For definable classes use def-relativization-to-a-definable-class separately for each fixed formula; do not quantify over a universe truth predicate. Countability in this definition is outside the proposed model. A model or CTM of the full source theory is not part of finite-fragment data unless explicitly assumed.

[F3]

Models and consistency for countable theories: In external ZF, an explicitly countable sentence theory is consistent iff it has a nonempty set model, and iff it has a model with carrier injecting into ω. For an effective presentation, external consistency agrees with the truth of its certified Con formula in standard arithmetic. No transitivity or external well-foundedness of a model follows.

Proof

Given: The two stipulated T proofs for every fixed finite target fragment and sufficient internal set-model soundness in T.

1.1F1F2given

If U had an actual refutation p, F1 extracts the finite set Delta of its nonlogical axiom lines. The same annotated proof is a Delta refutation. Apply the stipulated fragment data F2 to exactly this Delta: its two T proofs give a suitable source model and a model N of Delta. Finite assembly of these proofs is licensed by F1.

2.1F3step 1.1∎

Inside T, formal soundness applied to the fixed finite derivation p says every nonempty model of Delta satisfies its contradictory last sentence. The model N just obtained cannot satisfy that sentence; thus T proves a contradiction. The set-model soundness principle is part of the stated strength hypothesis on T, consistent with the external model/consistency direction F3. Therefore Con(T) rules out every actual U refutation, giving Con(U). Only the single finite support of the alleged proof was used.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources